UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

x   ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2016 

OR

¨   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ________ to ________

Commission File Number 333-198073

Second Sight Medical Products, Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

12744 San Fernando Road, Suite 400, Sylmar, CA 91342
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (818) 833-5000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ¨ No x

The aggregate market value of the shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2016, computed by reference to the closing sales price on the Nasdaq Capital Market on that date, was approximately $61 million.

As of March 14, 2017, the number of shares of the Registrant’s common stock outstanding was 56,365,629.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated herein by reference in Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein. Such proxy statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

SECOND SIGHT MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC.

FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Item 1. Business

Our Company

Overview

Second Sight was founded in 1998 with a mission to develop, manufacture, and market prosthetic devices that restore useful vision to blind individuals. Our principal offices are located in Sylmar, California, approximately 25 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. We also have an office in Lausanne, Switzerland, that manages our commercial and clinical operations in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia-Pacific.

Our current product, the Argus ^® II System, treats outer retinal degenerations, such as retinitis pigmentosa, also referred to as RP. RP is a hereditary disease, affecting an estimated 1.5 million people worldwide including about 100,000 people in the United States, that causes a progressive degeneration of the light-sensitive cells of the retina, leading to significant visual impairment and ultimately blindness. The Argus II System is the only retinal prosthesis approved in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and was the first approved retinal prosthesis in the world. By restoring a form of useful vision in patients who otherwise have total sight loss, the Argus II System can provide benefits which include: 

The Argus II System provides an artificial form of vision that differs from the vision of people with normal sight. It does not restore normal vision and it does not reverse the progression of the disease. Results vary among patients: while the majority of patients receive significant benefit from the Argus II, some patients report receiving little or no benefit.

Our major corporate, clinical and regulatory milestones include:

Currently, after more than 18 years of research and development, more than $180 million of investment and over $34 million of grants awarded in support of our technology development, we employ over 100 people in the development (research, engineering and clinical), manufacture, and commercialization of the Argus II System and future products.

Our Technology

The Argus II System employs electrical stimulation to bypass degenerated photoreceptor cells and to stimulate remaining viable retinal cells thereby inducing visual perception in blind individuals. The Argus II System works by converting video images captured by a miniature camera housed in a patient’s glasses into a series of small electrical pulses that are transmitted wirelessly to an array of electrodes that are implanted on the surface of the retina. These pulses are intended to stimulate the retina’s remaining cells, resulting in a corresponding perception of patterns of light in the brain. Following the implant surgery, patients learn to interpret these visual patterns thereby regaining some useful vision, allowing them to detect shapes of people and objects in their surroundings.

We believe the Argus II System (including its implantable components) possesses several unique technological advancements compared to other neurostimulation devices including a hermetic package with the smallest size and largest number of individually programmable electrodes, and a patented electrode material that allows high charge densities and small electrode size. Several other engineering challenges, including device reliability, extended lifetime, and a safe and effective bio-interface, were overcome during the development of the product and these solutions have been protected both by patents and by trade secrets. As of December 31, 2016, we have 381 issued patents and 126 pending patent applications worldwide. Additionally, from a competitive standpoint, the Argus II System possesses attractive technical and other features that include:

We have demonstrated the ability to design products with long-term reliability. The Argus I retinal prosthesis, a proof of concept device that was a predecessor to the Argus II, was implanted in six patients in the United States. Argus I patients were implanted an average of almost six years, with one patient having used the device for over 10 years. The Argus II System has been implanted in over 200 patients. The average implant duration for these patients is nearly three years with several users continuing to use the system almost 10 years following implantation.

We are developing another product that stimulates the visual part of the brain rather than the retina, which we refer to as the Orion I visual prosthesis system. Our objective in designing and developing the Orion I visual prosthesis system is to bypass the optic nerve and directly stimulate the part of the brain responsible for vision, the visual cortex. This has the potential to help many more patients whose optic nerves are damaged by trauma or disease. As currently under development, the Orion I visual prosthesis system is based on technology that we utilize in our Argus II system, thereby reducing engineering investment costs and risks, and leveraging the reliability of the Argus II platform. By limiting the changes to the FDA approved Argus II system, we can progress relatively quickly to human trials.

Our Markets

Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP)

RP is a group of inherited disorders that affect the retina. The retina is a layer of nerve cells at the back of the eye. RP is a disease that gradually robs relatively young people of their vision over time. Onset of RP is often noted in the teen years or early twenties, typically as night blindness. This is followed by a period of peripheral vision loss, until the patient is left with a tunnel of vision and then no remaining sight. Although there are various genetic causes (over 100) and thus variability in the disease progression, many people with advanced RP have lost all functional vision by their 40s or 50s. The Argus II System works by bypassing rods and cones which are defunct in these patients, and sending electrical signals directly to the retina’s remaining healthy cells.

Although there are reported trials for other treatments underway, to our knowledge the Argus II System remains the only approved therapeutic option for end-stage RP in the US, and to our knowledge it is the only treatment option generally available to commercial patients anywhere in the world.

Worldwide, an estimated 1.5 million people suffer from RP¹, which includes about 100,000 in the US².  Pan-European data is not readily available, but we believe it is reasonable to estimate that the average prevalence throughout Europe is similar to the average prevalence within the US, and so the ratio of populations could be used to estimate the number of Europeans affected as 167,000 in the 28 EU countries^3,4.  Approximately 25% of people with RP in the US have vision that is 20/200 or worse (legally blind)⁵. Since the bare light perception or worse vision criterion for the US indication is worse than 20/200, we know the subset of patients that can be treated by the Argus II System is less than 25,000 in the US. Reliable market data estimating the actual number of patients with bare light perception or worse vision is unavailable. We believe that the majority of patients with vision 20/200 or worse have vision that is better than bare light perception and thus, are not currently candidates for Argus II. In Europe, the indicated vision loss for Argus II patients is severe to profound which, while better than bare light perception, remains somewhat worse than 20/200. An estimated 42,000 patients in Europe with RP have vision worse than 20/200 and we estimate that the subset of RP patients that can be treated in Europe to be somewhat smaller than this number. As in the US, reliable market data estimating the actual number of patients with severe to profound vision loss or worse is unavailable. We believe that the majority of patients with vision 20/200 or worse in Europe have vision that is too good to be considered a candidate for Argus II with current clinical indications and physician practice. Worldwide, we estimate that 375,000 people are legally blind due to RP, and that a portion of these would be candidates for the Argus II System.

As we improve the quality of vision that the Argus II can produce, we expect to be able to treat a higher percentage of the legally blind population by treating better sighted patients.

¹ Weleber, R.G. and Gregory-Evans, K. (2001) ‘Retinitis Pigmentosa and allied disorders.’ In Ryan, S.J. (ed.), Retina. Mosby, St. Louis, pp, 362-470.

² Foundation Fighting Blindness estimates that about 100,000 Americans are affected by RP or similar diseases. (http://www.ffb.ca/documents/File/rp_guide/Guide_to_RP_and_Other_Related_Diseases.pdf)

³ Eurostat. Retrieved 1 January 2013.

⁴ Haim M. Epidemiology of Retinitis Pigmentosa in Denmark. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 2002; 1-34.

⁵ Grover et al., ‘Visual Acuity Impairment in Patients with Retinitis Pigmentosa at Age 45 Years or Older’, Ophthalmology. 1999 Sept; 106(9):1780-5.

Age Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)

AMD is a relatively common eye condition and the leading cause of vision loss among people aged 65 and older ¹ . The macula is a small spot near the center of the retina and its damage results in loss of central vision. AMD can start as a blurred area near the center of vision and over time it can grow larger until loss of central vision occurs. Central vision is extremely important for everyday tasks such as reading, writing, and face recognition.

There are three stages of AMD defined in part by the size of drusen (yellow deposits) under the retina. Early and intermediate stage AMD has few symptoms or vision loss. These earlier stages of the disease are usually left untreated or dealt with using diet supplementation. People with advanced AMD have vision loss from damage to the macula. There are two types of late stage AMD:

Worldwide, between 20 and 25 million people are estimated to suffer from vision loss due to AMD ² , and of these about two million have vision that is considered legally blind, or worse ³ .  In the US, just over two million people experience vision loss due to AMD according to a 2010 study by the National Eye Institute. Of the 1.3 million legally blind Americans ⁴ , we estimate that 42.5% (or 552,500) are due to AMD ⁵ .  Applying this percent of legally blind due to AMD (42.5%) to the total number of legally blind people in Europe (2.55 million) ⁶ , we estimate the population of legally blind individuals from AMD to be about 1.08 million individuals in Europe. We believe the Argus II System may be able to help a subset of these legally blind AMD patients who have severe to profound vision loss. To date, though clinical testing has produced subjective improvements, we have not yet demonstrated objective benefits. The challenge in demonstrating objective benefits in these patients is that they maintain residual peripheral vision. Thus, we must demonstrate that the quality of the vision we produce is better than their residual vision, which is much more challenging than demonstrating benefit for the RP patients we are currently treating, which have completely lost all vision.

Other diseases resulting in blindness that may be treated by Orion I cortical visual prosthesis system

Many diseases outside of RP and AMD can also cause blindness. Many of the largest causes of visual impairment (i.e. refractive error and cataracts) are avoidable or curable, and their prolonged or untreated impact on vision is largely observed in developing nations and are not part of our target market. Some other causes of blindness, such as brain trauma, may also not be suitable for treatment by a cortical stimulator. However, the remaining causes of severe vision loss which include glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, eye trauma, retinopathy of prematurity and many others can result in severe visual impairment that we anticipate to be treatable by an Orion I visual prosthesis system.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) ⁷ , 285 million people suffer from vision loss worldwide. Of these, 39 million people are considered legally blind. The WHO further estimates that 80% of legal blindness is avoidable, leaving 7.8 million legally blind individuals, including those blind due to AMD and RP, or 5.8 million excluding AMD and RP. In the US, 1.3 million people are legally blind ⁸ , of which we estimate 44.3%, or 575,900, are legally blind due to causes other than preventable/treatable conditions, RP or AMD ⁹ . Applying the same logic, we estimate 1.13 million individuals are legally blind in Europe due to causes other than preventable/treatable conditions, RP or AMD. As with Retinitis Pigmentosa, we believe the initial Orion I will treat a subset of these legally blind individuals, likely starting with the ones who are completely blind and moving to better sighted patients as the technology improves.

¹ The Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group, 2004a; CDC, 2009.

² Choptar, A., Chakravarthy, U., and Verma, D. ‘Age Related Macular Degeneration’. BJM 2003;326:485.

³ Global Data on Visual Impairments 2010, World Health Organization.

⁴ National Eye Institute (http://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata/blind.asp).

⁵ Congdon N, O’Colmain B, Klaver CC, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States.  Arch Ophthalmol.  Apr 2004;122(4):477-485. This percent amount was derived from the rates of different causes of blindness by different races and racial demographic data from 2010 US Census data.

⁶ Global Data on Visual Impairments 2010, World Health Organization.

⁷ WHO Fact Sheet number 282, updated October 2013.

⁸ National Eye Institute (http://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata/blind.asp).

⁹ Congdon N, O’Colmain B, Klaver CC, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States.  Arch Ophthalmol.  Apr 2004;122(4):477-485. This percent amount was derived from the rates of different causes of blindness by different races and racial demographic data from 2010 US Census data.

Our Strategy

Second Sight’s strategy can be summarized as follows:

Establish Centers of Excellence (COE) and expand reimbursement coverage to reach a larger percentage of eligible patients

We launched the Argus II System in Italy and Germany at the end of 2011; in Saudi Arabia, France, the Netherlands and England in 2013; in Switzerland, Spain, the US and Canada in 2014; and Austria and Turkey in 2015. We are employing a refined Centers of Excellence sales strategy, deploying the Argus II at prominent, reputable eye centers which are equipped to handle all aspects of an Argus II program including patient recruitment, surgery, fitting and rehabilitation. We believe this strategy represents an efficient use of our capital after giving consideration to the following factors:

When selecting new sites, we focus on high quality health providers considering the following factors:

As of December 31, 2016, we have 15 qualified centers in the United States and Canada that are actively implanting the Argus II.  Ultimately, we anticipate serving the North American RP market with approximately 35 implanting centers across the US and Canada. In Europe and the Middle East, we currently have 21 centers that are actively implanting the Argus II (eight in Germany, three in France, one in Saudi Arabia, four in Turkey, two in Spain, and three in Italy).  We believe that we will be able to serve the European and Middle East markets for RP by having approximately 50 centers across Europe and the Middle East. 

To date, we have employed direct sales and clinical specialists to service our markets in the US and Canada.  The majority of our markets in Europe are also serviced by a direct sales and clinical specialist team. As of December 31, 2016, the sales/clinical specialist team for North America numbered four persons and the sales team for Europe and the Middle East numbered seven persons.  In some cases, we believe that we can more efficiently expand our reach by securing distributors in key markets. To date, we have appointed distributors in Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Argentina. We expect that our distributors will commit to providing support services that include marketing, market access, sales, surgical support, post-surgery programming, rehabilitation coordination and service.

The Company is evaluating potential new markets including countries in Latin America or Asia Pacific regions. We will selectively enter markets based on multiple factors including: the presence of RP patients, skilled surgeons, a facility with the necessary support infrastructure, a reliable source of funding or reimbursement along with the assurance that needed clinical, rehabilitation and surgical support can be provided.

Centers of Excellence

Our revised COE strategy in the US market is designed to help our centers more effectively manage Argus II patients and achieve better, more consistent patient outcomes. The COE strategy consists of four major initiatives: (1) financial, (2) patient recruitment, education and screening, (3) post-surgery programming, and (4) patient support and artificial vision rehabilitation.

In summary, the aim of the COE program is to establish implanting centers and physician clinics that are more intimately knowledgeable, self-sufficient, and confident, enabling them to be able to treat a higher volume of patients. We also feel the COE program is important development work that prepares the Company and our customers for the support requirements necessary to serve expanded patient populations in the future such as better-sighted RP patients.

Global Reimbursement

Obtaining reimbursement from governmental and private insurance companies is critical to our commercial success. Due to the cost of the Argus II System, our sales would be limited without the availability of third party reimbursement. In the US, coding, coverage, and payment are necessary for the surgical procedure and Argus II system to be reimbursed by payers. Coding has been established for the device and the surgical procedure. Coverage and payment vary by payer. The majority of Argus II patients are eligible for Medicare, and coverage is primarily provided through traditional Medicare (sometimes referred to as Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) or Medicare Advantage. A small percentage of patients are covered by commercial insurers.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, 12 individuals in the US and Canada were implanted with the Argus II technology. Of the 12 patients, nine were Medicare FFS patients, one was a Medicare Advantage patient, one was a Veteran’s Administration patient and the remaining one was a privately funded patient in Canada.

Second Sight employs dedicated employees and consultants with insurance reimbursement expertise engaged to expand and enhance coverage decisions. Currently, five MAC jurisdictions comprising 17 states have agreed to cover the Argus II System when medically necessary for the FDA approved indications. The MACs now covering the Argus II include First Coast Service Options (Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S.V.I.), CGS Administrators, LLC (for the states of Ohio and Kentucky), Palmetto GBA (for the states of North and South Carolina, West Virginia and Virginia, other than the counties of Arlington and Fairfax in Virginia and the City of Arlington in Virginia), National Government Services, Inc. (NGS), Jurisdiction 6 (for the states of Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin), and NGS, Jurisdiction K (for the states of Connecticut, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont). We are actively engaged with the remaining MACs and are committed to supporting their requests for additional information and clinical evidence. We expect that additional positive coverage decisions will be issued over time but cannot predict timing or ultimate success with each MAC.

Within Europe, we have obtained reimbursement approval or funding in Germany, France and one region of Italy. On December 22, 2016, NHS England announced it would cover 10 Argus implantations as part of a Commissioning through Evaluation (CtE) program. The CtE program is especially designed for treatments that show significant promise for the future, while new clinical and patient experience data are collected within a formal evaluation program. This program is similar to the Forfait Innovation program in France. NHS England is known to be under significant financial pressure and also highly selective in adopting innovative technologies – which must demonstrate sufficient value for the cost expended.

We are seeking reimbursement approval in other countries including Belgium and Turkey and we are also seeking reimbursement approval in additional regions of Italy. In France, Second Sight was selected to receive the first "Forfait Innovation" (Innovation Bundle) from the Ministry of Health, which is a special funding program for breakthrough procedures to be introduced into clinical practice. As part of this program, Second Sight is conducting a post-market study in France which has enrolled a total of 18 subjects and will follow them for two years.  The French program will fund implantation of up to 18 additional patients that will not be part of the post-market study. After review of the study’s results, we expect Argus II therapy to be covered and funded through the standard payment system in France, however, we can provide no assurance that the French government will continue to fund the Argus II after the first 36 implants. 

To date, we have not faced traditional sales challenges in any of our markets, largely due to the currently unmet clinical need and the lack of any other commercially available device or competitive treatment for RP-caused profound blindness. Our marketing activities have focused on raising awareness of the Argus II System with potential patients, implanting physicians, and referring physicians. Our marketing activities include exhibiting, sponsoring symposia, and securing podium presence at professional and trade shows, securing journalist coverage in popular and trade media, attending patient meetings focused on educating patients about existing and future treatments, and sponsoring information sessions for the Argus II System. In the US, our efforts in 2017 will focus on media ads dedicated to RP patients and their families. These ads will be placed in geographic areas where we have Centers of Excellence committed to Argus II.

Improve Argus II performance and significantly expand use in the RP population by treating better-sighted patients

The Argus II System is currently approved for RP patients with bare or no light perception in the US, and in Europe for severe to profound vision loss due to outer retinal degeneration, such as from retinitis pigmentosa, choroideremia, and other similar conditions. The number of people who are legally blind due to RP is estimated to be about 25,000 in the US, 42,000 in Europe, and about 375,000 total worldwide. As discussed above, a subset of these patients would be eligible for the Argus II System since the approved baseline vision for the Argus II System is worse than legally blind (20/200). Scarce epidemiological data on visual acuity below legal blindness make it difficult to determine a precise estimate of the potential patient population for this device, but resulting from our commercial efforts thus far we believe most legally blind patients have vision too good for Argus II’s current clinical indications.

The Company believes an opportunity exists to expand the use of its technology to better sighted individuals with RP who are currently not being treated. In order to achieve this market expansion, the Company plans to start collecting clinical data in 2017 and is undertaking multiple development efforts to improve the technology’s performance. Our clinical and R&D plans for this market segment can be summarized as follows:

Leverage proven ARGUS technology to restore some vision with cortical stimulation and expand addressable market to include a portion of the almost 6 million patients who are blind from eye trauma, optic nerve disease, and other unpreventable causes

We believe we can further expand our market to include nearly all profoundly blind individuals, other than those who are blind due to preventable diseases or due to brain damage, by developing a visual cortical prosthesis. We refer to this product as the Orion ^TM I visual prosthesis system. We estimate that there are approximately 5.8 million people worldwide who are legally blind due to causes other than preventable conditions, RP or AMD. If approved for marketing, the FDA and other regulatory agencies will determine the subset of these patients who are eligible for the Orion I.

Our objective in designing and developing the Orion I visual prosthesis system is to bypass the optic nerve and directly stimulate the part of the brain responsible for vision. As currently under development, the Orion I visual prosthesis system is based on technology that we utilize in our Argus II system, thereby reducing engineering investment costs and risks, and leveraging the reliability of the Argus II platform. We plan to submit an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) application to the FDA in 2017 to begin a human feasibility study of the Orion I visual prosthesis system. We also expect to implant and activate our Orion I visual prosthesis system in human subjects during 2017. This study will confirm initial findings in our human pilot study we announced in Q4 2016 and provide the first human data of a fully functional wireless visual cortical stimulator system including the external video camera system. This initial study in a small number of subjects, if successful, should also form the basis for an expansion to a pivotal clinical trial in 2018.

In Q4 2016 the Company announced the successful implantation and activation of a wireless visual cortical stimulator in a human subject. In the UCLA study supported by Second Sight, a 30 year old patient was implanted with a wireless multichannel neurostimulation system on the visual cortex and was able to perceive and localize individual phosphenes or spots of light with no significant adverse side effects. While the technology implanted was not the Orion I, the study is significant in our efforts to advance our technology and is providing valuable data to support the ongoing development and subsequent clinical trial of our Orion I. This important clinical result so far confirms our hypothesis that the Orion I will function similarly to the Argus II and has increased the priority of this program.

Continue clinical testing of Argus II in AMD patients to demonstrate benefit and provide necessary data to inform further clinical trials and/or R&D efforts

We began a five-subject pilot study in the United Kingdom in June 2015, to determine the utility of the Argus II System for use in persons suffering from dry AMD. In Q2 2016 we completed enrollment and continue to track the subjects via the site in Manchester. The subjects have reported the ability to integrate their native peripheral vision with their artificial central vision. Subjects also report that they enjoy using their Argus system. To date, however, the subjects have not demonstrated significant objective benefit over their residual vision when using the Argus II. We plan to continue testing these subjects and will submit a revised clinical protocol in early 2017. Our approaches to improving the effective resolution in RP patients may also work in AMD patients, which could help us demonstrate objective benefit over their residual vision. The revised protocol will request approval to test new retinal stimulation techniques with the existing subjects with the belief they will benefit. If this clinical testing is successful, we plan to enroll additional patients in our pursuit of a solution for this large patient population. 

We estimate the population of people who are legally blind due to AMD to be about 552,500 in the US, 1.08 million in Europe, and two million worldwide. If Argus II is approved for AMD, we believe that a subset of these patients would be eligible for the Argus II. Because of the clinical uncertainly, we are not yet prepared to predict a timeline to commercialize our technology for this large patient population. No assurance can be given that we will be successful in any of these endeavors. 

Our Competition

The US life sciences industry is highly competitive and well-positioned for future growth. The treatment of blindness is a significant clinically unmet need and others continue to make progress. There are several approaches to treating blindness including:

Commercial efforts to develop retinal implants by others include:

To our knowledge, no other retinal prosthesis has been successful in long-term human trials, with the Argus II System currently the sole implant generally available to commercial patients for treating RP in the US, Canada, EU, and Saudi Arabia. We anticipate that our competitors are unlikely to obtain significant commercial traction in EU until they have developed in depth clinical data showing the reliability and functionality of their products.

Warranty

We generally provide a standard limited warranty for the Argus II System covering replacement over the following periods after implant:

Based on our experience to date, the Argus II System has proven to be a reliable device generally performing as intended. We have accrued warranty expense of $1.5 million as of December 31, 2016, which we believe to be adequate.

Our Manufacturing and Quality Assurance

We have a single manufacturing facility, located at our principal office in Sylmar, California. The manufacturing areas at this location are housed in a single building, and include approximately 10,000 square feet of controlled environment rooms (CERs) suitable for implant manufacturing. We currently utilize less than half of this space for Argus II implant production. At the same site we maintain spaces for assembling the external (non-implantable) components of our system and for the labeling, receiving and shipping, and stockroom functions. Finished goods are held at this location and at our contracted distributor in Europe.

We rely on many suppliers to provide materials and services necessary to produce and test our products. Many of these materials or services are currently provided by sole source suppliers. In a number of instances we maintain sole source suppliers because our current purchasing volumes do not warrant developing more than one supplier. We expect to secure additional providers as our production volumes increase. If we experience a loss of a sole supplier before confirming an alternative, we risk possible disruptions in our operations. We attempt to mitigate the sole source risk, by among other things, increasing parts inventory as a partial hedge against interruptions in parts supply and by actively seeking to develop alternative suppler sources before experiencing any such disruptions.

Our manufacturing department currently employs 22 persons and the quality assurance department has an additional nine members. We operate a day shift and smaller swing shift, and at this staffing level we can manufacture approximately 10 devices per month. Due to the reduction in sales of the Argus II during 2016, we reduced manufacturing output beginning in the second quarter of 2016. We believe that the space available at the current facility when fully utilized and operating at two full shifts will prove sufficient to build and assemble a combined total of approximately 100 Argus II or Orion I devices per month.

Employees

As of December 31, 2016, we had 110 employees, including approximately 31 in operations; 18 in selling, marketing and distribution; 44 in clinical, regulatory and research and development; and 17 in administration. Of these persons, we employed 92 in the United States and 18 in Europe. We believe that the continued success of our business will depend, in part, on our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, and we are committed to developing our people and providing them with opportunities to contribute to our growth and success. None of these employees is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and we believe our relationship with our employees is good to excellent.

Properties

Our principal office and facilities are located at 12744 San Fernando Road, Suite 400, Sylmar, California 91342, and consists of approximately 45,351 rentable square feet at a current base rent of about $34,500 per month. Our lease expires in February 2022 and grants us an option to extend the lease term for an additional 60 months. We originally rented these premises from Mann Biomedical Park LLC, an entity affiliated with our former Chairman of the Board, Alfred E. Mann. We believe that the terms of this lease are at least as favorable as those that may have been obtained from a non-affiliated third party. We believe that these premises are adequate for our foreseeable needs. In November 2014, the industrial center in which these premises are located was sold to an independent third party.

Our European office is located on the Innovation Park at EPFL, Rue Jean Daniel Colladon, CH 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. These premises consist of 180 square meters at a base rent of about 8,200 CHF per month, or currently about $8,200 per month. We rent these premises on a month-to-month basis subject to a six month notice required for termination, from the Foundation for the Innovation Park at EPFL.

Legal Proceedings

We are not a party to any pending legal proceedings other than those involving Pixium Vision, and Retina Implant AG, described in “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property and Other Legal Matters.”

Available Information

Our website address is www.secondsight.com. We make available free of charge through a link provided at such website our Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K as well as any amendments thereto. Such reports are available as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

The statements that are not historical facts contained in this Form 10-K are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements reflect the current belief, expectations or intent of our management and are subject to and involve certain risks and uncertainties. Many of these risks and uncertainties are outside of our control and are difficult for us to forecast or mitigate. An investment in our common stock is speculative and involves a high degree of risk. In addition to the risks described elsewhere in this Form 10-K and in certain of our other filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the following important factors, among others, could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by us in any forward-looking statements contained herein or made elsewhere by or on behalf of us. The risks described below are not the only risks we face. If any of the events described in the following risk factors actually occurs, or if additional risks and uncertainties later materialize, that are not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial, then our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. In that event, the trading price of our common stock or our warrants could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment in our shares or in our warrants.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on the Argus II System

We depend on the success of our first commercial product, the Argus II System, which received European market clearance (CE Mark) in February 2011 and FDA approval in February 2013, in the United States for RP; and on the regulatory approval of our current product and a new device under development, the Orion I visual prosthesis (a modified version of the Argus II System), to treat other diseases causing blindness, in the US and other countries, which may never occur.

Our future success depends upon building a commercial operation in the US and expanding growth in Europe as well as entering additional markets to commercialize our Argus II System for both RP and AMD. We believe our expanded growth will depend on the further development, regulatory approval and commercialization of the Orion I product, which we anticipate can be used by nearly all profoundly blind individuals. If we fail to expand the use of the Argus II System in a timely manner for other forms of retinal degeneration in addition to RP, or to develop the Orion I product and penetrate the available markets which those applications are intended to serve, we may not be able to expand our markets or to grow our revenue, our stock values could decline and investors may lose money.

Our revenue from sales of Argus II System is dependent upon the pricing and reimbursement guidelines adopted in each country and if pricing and reimbursement levels are inadequate to achieve profitability our operations will suffer.

Our financial success depends on our ability to price our products in a manner acceptable to government and private payers while still maintaining our profit margins. Numerous factors that may be beyond our control may ultimately impact our pricing of Argus II System and determine whether we are able to obtain reimbursement or reimbursement at adequate levels from governmental programs and private insurance. If we are unable to obtain reimbursement or our product is not adequately reimbursed, we will experience reduced sales, our revenues likely will be adversely affected, and we may not become profitable.

Obtaining reimbursement approvals is time consuming, requires substantial management attention, and is expensive. Our business will be materially adversely affected if we do not receive approval for reimbursement of the Argus II System under government programs and from private insurers on a timely or satisfactory basis. Limitations on coverage could also be imposed at the local Medicare Administrative Contractor level or by fiscal intermediaries in the U.S. and by regional, or national funding agencies in Europe. Our business could be materially adversely affected if the Medicare program, local Medicare Administrative Contractors or fiscal intermediaries were to make such a determination and deny, restrict or limit the reimbursement of Argus II System.

Similarly in Europe these governmental and other agencies could deny, restrict or limit the reimbursement of Argus II System at the hospital, regional or national level. Our business also could be adversely affected if retinal specialists and the facilities within which they operate are not adequately reimbursed by Medicare and other funding agencies for the cost of the procedure in which they implant the Argus II System on a basis satisfactory to the administering retinal specialists and their facilities. If the local contractors that administer the Medicare program and other funding agencies are slow to reimburse retinal specialists or provider facilities for the Argus II System, the retinal specialists may delay their payments to us, which would adversely affect our working capital requirements. If the funding agencies delay reimbursement payments to the hospitals, any increase to their working capital requirements could reduce their willingness to treat blind patients who wish to have our devices implanted. If reimbursement for our products is unavailable, limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business will be materially harmed.

Our commercial and financial success depends on the Argus II System being accepted in the market, and if not achieved will result in our not being able to generate revenues to support our operations.

Even if we are able to obtain favorable reimbursement within the markets that we serve, commercial success of our products will depend, among other things, on their acceptance by retinal specialists, ophthalmologists, general practitioners, low vision therapists and mobility experts, hospital purchasing and controlling departments, patients, and other members of the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our product candidates will depend on factors that include:

The activities of competitive medical device companies, or others, may limit the Argus II System’s revenue.

Our commercial opportunities for the Argus II System may be reduced if our competitors develop or market products that are more effective, are better tolerated, receive better reimbursement terms, are more accepted by physicians, have better distribution channels, or are less costly.

Currently, to our knowledge, no other medical devices comparable to the Argus II System have been approved by regulatory agencies, both in the US and Europe, to restore some functional vision in persons who have become blind due to RP. Other visual prosthesis companies such as Retina Implant AG and Pixium Vision S.A., both based in Europe, are developing retinal implant technologies to partially restore some vision in blind patients. Retina Implant has obtained a CE mark for its Alpha IMS product but has not yet sold it to our knowledge, and to our knowledge neither Retina Implant nor Pixium has filed for market approval with the FDA, nor to our knowledge has either company obtained an Investigational Device Exemption to begin the required clinical trials in the US. These competitive therapies if or when developed or brought to market may result in pricing and market access pressure even if Argus II System is otherwise viewed as a preferable therapy.

Many privately and publicly funded universities and other organizations are engaged in research and development of potentially competitive products and therapies, such as stem cell and gene therapies, some of which may target RP and other indications as our product candidates. These organizations include pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities, hospital centers, government agencies and research organizations. Our competitors include large and small medical device and biotechnology companies that may have significant access to capital resources, competitive product pipelines, substantial research and development staffs and facilities, and substantial experience in medical device development.

We may face substantial competition in the future and may not be able to keep pace with the rapid technological changes which may result from others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

In general the development and commercialization of new medical devices is highly competitive and is characterized by extensive research and development and rapid technological change. Our customers consider many factors including product reliability, clinical outcomes, product availability, inventory consignment, price, and product services provided by the manufacturer. Market share can shift as a result of technological innovation and other business factors. We believe these risk factors are partially mitigated by the Argus II System being the sole product that is currently available for commercial implantation in the US and Europe. Major shifts in industry market share have occurred in connection with product problems, physician advisories and safety alerts, reflecting the importance of product quality in the medical device industry, and any quality problems with our processes, goods and services could harm our reputation for producing high-quality products and would erode our competitive advantage, sales and market share. Our competitors may develop products or other novel technologies that are more effective, safer or less costly than any that we are developing and if those products gain market acceptance our revenue and financial results could be adversely affected.

If we fail to develop new products or enhance existing products, our leadership in the markets we serve could erode, and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

We have not been profitable to date and expect our operating losses to continue for the foreseeable future; we may never be profitable.

We have incurred operating losses and generated negative cash flows since our inception and have financed our operations principally through equity investments and borrowings. Our ability to generate sufficient revenues to fund operations is uncertain. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, we had net revenue of $4.0 million and incurred a net loss of $33.2 million. Our total accumulated deficit through December 31, 2016, was $205.8 million.

As a result of our limited commercial operating history, revenue is difficult to predict with certainty. Current and projected expense levels are based largely on estimates of future revenue. We expect expenses to increase in the future as we expand our activities in connection with the further development of Orion I and complete planned enhancements of Argus II. We cannot assure you that we will be profitable in the future. Accordingly, the extent of our future losses and the time required to achieve profitability, if ever, is uncertain. Failure to achieve profitability could materially and adversely affect the value of our Company and our ability to effect additional financings. The success of the business depends on our ability to increase revenues to offset expenses. If our revenues fall short of projections, our business, financial condition and operating results will be materially adversely affected.

Our financial statements have been prepared assuming a going concern qualification by our auditors.

Our independent registered public accounting firm in their report on the Company’s 2016 consolidated financial statements expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern since we did not have adequate capital to support our operations through at least the next 12 months from the date the consolidated financial statements are issued. Our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon our ability to obtain additional financing, obtain further operating efficiencies, reduce expenditures, attain favorable gross margins and ultimately, create profitable operations. Such financings may not be available or may not be available on reasonable terms. A ”going concern” opinion from our auditors may negatively affect the price of our common stock.

Sales, or the availability for sale, of substantial amounts of our common stock could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

We cannot predict the effect, if any, that future sales of our common stock, or the availability of our common stock for future sales, will have on the market price of our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market and the availability of shares for future sale could adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock. This in turn could impair our future ability to raise capital through an offering of our equity securities.

There may be future sales or other dilution of our equity, which may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

We are not restricted from issuing additional shares of common stock. The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales of our common stock and Warrants or the perception that such sales could occur. We may issue and sell additional shares of our common stock in private placements or registered offerings in the future. We also may conduct additional rights offerings in the future pursuant to which we may issue shares of our common stock or other securities.

The warrants we issued in our recent rights offering to shareholders may create an overhang on the market and have a negative effect on the market price for our common stock.

We issued 13,652,341 warrants in connection with our recently completed rights offering of units to our shareholders. The  warrants may be outstanding for up to five years. The warrants may be used in arbitrage transactions and can cause the price of our common stock to remain at the warrant exercise price of $1.47 regardless of our performance.

We have identified and reported on weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting and if our internal control over financial reporting remains not effective, investor confidence in our company may be adversely affected.

In response to identified, and reported material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we are continuing to develop and improve our system and process documentation necessary to perform the evaluation needed to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. For example, in connection with the audit of our consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2015 and 2016, our independent registered public accounting firm identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. A “material weakness” is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Our independent registered public accounting firm identified the following material weaknesses during their audits:

While we have taken actions to remediate these specific weaknesses, the Company does not have complete written documentation of its internal control policies, procedures and controls and has not fully completed testing of its key controls. Management evaluated the impact of its failure to have fully tested its internal controls and procedures and has concluded that the control deficiency that resulted represented a material weakness and that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

If we continue to be unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion on the effectiveness of our internal controls when it is required to do so by the applicable rules, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline, and we may be subject to investigation or sanctions by the regulatory authorities.

As a result, we may need to undertake various actions, such as implementing new internal controls and procedures and hiring additional accounting or internal audit staff. Our remediation efforts may not enable us to avoid a material weakness in the future.

A recent civil complaint that the SEC filed against our CFO, as a co-defendant in regard to his prior tenure at another company, could also call into question the quality and reliability of our internal control over financial reporting and our financial statements.

On February 3, 2017, the SEC filed a civil complaint against Tom Miller, our CFO, and another co-defendant, who was Director of Accounting at Ixia, alleging that, during 2012 and 2013 when Mr. Miller was the CFO of Ixia, Mr. Miller and his co-defendant (1) violated certain provisions of the Exchange Act, (2) made, or caused to be made, false statements in Ixia’s public filings with the SEC, and (3) made material misrepresentations to Ixia’s auditors in an effort prematurely to recognize and misstate Ixia’s revenue. We cannot predict when or how this matter will be resolved. Our company is not involved in this proceeding and we do not have any control over the disposition of this matter. Nonetheless, whether or not Mr. Miller is ultimately successful in defending this matter, the allegations in the complaint could cause investors to question the quality and reliability of our internal control over financial reporting and our financial statements and therefore decide to not invest in or to sell our common stock. Any such decisions to not invest in or to sell our common stock could adversely impact the price of our common stock, thereby causing losses to investors.

Materials necessary to manufacture Argus II may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which may delay development, manufacturing and commercialization of our products.

We rely on numerous suppliers to provide materials, components and services necessary to produce the Argus II System and next generation product candidates. Certain suppliers are currently sole source because of our low manufacturing volumes and our need for specialty technical or other engineering expertise. Our suppliers may be unable or unwilling to deliver these materials and services to us timely as needed or on commercially reasonable terms. Should this occur, we would seek to qualify alternative suppliers or develop in-house manufacturing capability, but may be unable to do so. Substantial design or manufacturing process modifications and regulatory approval might be required to facilitate or qualify an alternate supplier. Even where we could qualify alternative suppliers the substitution of suppliers may be at a higher cost and cause time delays including delays associated with additional possible FDA review, that impede the commercial production of the Argus II System, reduce gross profit margins and impact our abilities to deliver our products as may be timely required to meet demand.

Any failure or delay in completing clinical trials or studies for new product candidates or next generation of the Argus II System and the expense of those trials could adversely affect our business.

Preclinical studies and clinical trials required to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of incremental changes and obtain indication expansion for the next generation of the Argus II System, including new externals and software enhancements and for new product candidates are time consuming and expensive. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other studies with respect to any of our product candidates beyond those that we have contemplated, if we are unable to successfully complete our clinical trials or other studies or if the results of these trials or studies are not positive or are only modestly positive, we may be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for those product candidates, we may not be able to obtain marketing approval or we may obtain approval for indications that are not as broad as intended. Our product development costs also will increase if we experience delays in testing or approvals.

The completion of clinical trials for our product candidates could be delayed because of our inability to manufacture or obtain from third-parties materials sufficient for use in preclinical studies and clinical trials; delays in patient enrollment and variability in the number and types of patients available for clinical trials; difficulty in maintaining contact with patients after treatment, resulting in incomplete data; poor effectiveness of product candidates during clinical trials; unforeseen safety issues or side effects; and governmental or regulatory delays and changes in regulatory requirements and guidelines.

If we incur significant delays in our clinical trials, our competitors may be able to bring their products to market before we do which could result in harming our ability to commercialize our products or potential products. If we experience any of these occurrences our business will be materially harmed. 

If we lose key management personnel, or if we fail to recruit additional highly skilled personnel, our ability to identify, develop and commercialize new or next generation product candidates will be impaired, could result in loss of markets or market share and could make us less competitive.

Our executives have significant medical device, regulatory, sales and marketing, operational, and/or corporate finance experience. The loss of any management executive or any other principal member of our management team could impair our ability to identify, develop and market new products or effectively deal with regulatory and reimbursement matters.

We could be adversely affected by violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws.

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to non-U.S. officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. We intend to adopt policies for compliance with these anti-bribery laws, which often carry substantial penalties. We cannot assure you that our internal control policies and procedures always will protect us from reckless or other inappropriate acts committed by our affiliates, employees or agents. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property and Other Legal Matters

If we or our licensors are unable to protect our/their intellectual property, then our financial condition, results of operations and the value of our technology and products could be adversely affected.

Patents and other proprietary rights are essential to our business and our ability to compete effectively with other companies is dependent upon the proprietary nature of our technologies. We also rely upon trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovations and licensing opportunities to develop, maintain and strengthen our competitive position. We seek to protect these, in part, through confidentiality agreements with certain employees, consultants and other parties. Our success will depend in part on the ability of our licensors to obtain, maintain (including making periodic filings and payments) and enforce patent protection for their intellectual property, in particular, those patents to which we have secured exclusive rights. Our licensors may not successfully prosecute or continue to prosecute the patent applications which we have licensed. Even if patents are issued in respect of these patent applications, we or our licensors may fail to maintain these patents, may determine not to pursue litigation against entities that are infringing upon these patents, or may pursue such enforcement less aggressively than we ordinarily would. Without adequate protection for the intellectual property that we own or license, other companies might be able to offer substantially identical products for sale, which could unfavorably affect our competitive business position and harm our business prospects.

Even if issued, patents may be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing similar products or limit the length of term of patent protection that we may have for our products.

Litigation or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement or challenges to the validity of our patents would require us to use resources to protect our technology and may prevent or delay our development, regulatory approval or commercialization of improvements in the Argus II System or new product candidates. Further, the validity of some of our patents have been challenged.

Pixium Vision (Pixium) has filed oppositions in the European Patent Office (EPO) challenging the validity of 17 European patents owned or exclusively licensed by Second Sight. Retina Implant AG has joined Pixium Vision in one Opposition. Two of these patents are owned by Johns Hopkins University (JHU) and exclusively licensed to Second Sight, while 15 of these patents are owned by Second Sight. Although Second Sight was successful in the opposition division in the two JHU cases. At the appeal level one of the JHU patents was upheld and one of JHU patents was invalidated. Second Sight has opposed one Pixium patent. These EPO proceedings involving us and Pixium include:

If we are the target of claims by third parties asserting that our products or intellectual property infringe upon the rights of others we may be forced to incur substantial expenses or divert substantial employee resources from our business and, if successful, those claims could result in our having to pay substantial damages or prevent us from developing one or more product candidates. Further, if a patent infringement suit were brought against us or our collaborators, we or they could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit.

If we experience patent infringement claims, or if we elect to avoid potential claims others may be able to assert, we or our collaborators may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from the third-party and would most likely be required to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we or our collaborators were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which would give our competitors access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we or our collaborators are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. This could harm our business significantly. The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding, regardless of its merit, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Some of our competitors may be able to bear the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their having greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. Intellectual property litigation and other proceedings may, regardless of their merit, also absorb significant management time and employee resources.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license development or commercialization rights to products or technology from third-parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We hold exclusive licenses from Johns Hopkins University, Duke University, and the Doheny Eye Institute to intellectual property relating to the Argus II visual prosthesis. These licenses impose various commercialization, milestone payment, profit sharing, insurance and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with any material obligations, the licensor will have the right to terminate the applicable license, which covers part of the system of the eye implant and thus will be a barrier to manufacture the Argus II System and impair our ability to sell the Argus II. The existing or future patents to which we have rights based on our agreements with Johns Hopkins University, Duke University and the Doheny Eye Institute may be too narrow to prevent third-parties from developing or designing around these patents. Additionally, we may lose our rights to the patents and patent applications we license in the event of a breach or termination of the license agreement. Each license expires with the expiration of the last of the licensed patents. In the case of JHU, the license will expire March 13, 2018. While the JHU agreement includes a patent which is a significant obstacle to our competitors, it is one of many other patents which in our view present material obstacles to our competitors. The DEI license includes ongoing research, making the expiration date indeterminate, but in any event the expiration date is no earlier than August 8, 2033. The total aggregate royalty on both agreements does not exceed 3.25% of Argus II System net sales. All of the patents in the DEI agreement are co-owned with the Doheny Eye Institute. We license the Doheny Eye Institute’s interest in the patents to maintain our exclusive use on that intellectual property. Should the license terminate we retain the right to utilize the intellectual property, but may not be able to prevent others from doing so, in which case we may lose a competitive advantage.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information and know-how, the value of our technology and products could be adversely affected.

In addition to patented technology, we rely upon, among other things, unpatented proprietary technology, processes, trade secrets and know-how. Any involuntary disclosure to or misappropriation by third-parties of our confidential or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, potentially eroding our competitive position in our market. We seek to protect confidential or proprietary information in part by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants and third-parties. While we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third-parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information and technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that this know-how, information and technology will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. These agreements may be terminated or breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such termination or breach. Furthermore, these agreements may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets and know-how in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. To the extent that any of our staff were previously employed by other pharmaceutical, medical technology or biotechnology companies, those employers may allege violations of trade secrets and other similar claims in relation to their medical device development activities for us.

If we are unable to protect the intellectual property used in our products, others may be able to copy our innovations which may impair our ability to compete effectively in our markets.

The strength of our patents involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. We have 381 issued patents and 126 pending patent applications worldwide as of December 31, 2016. Our patent applications may be challenged or fail to result in issued patents and our existing or future patents may be too narrow to prevent third-parties from developing or designing around our intellectual property and in that event we may lose competitive advantage and our business may suffer.

Further, the patent applications that we license or have filed may fail to result in issued patents. The claims may need to be amended. Even after amendment, a patent may not issue and in that event we may not obtain the exclusive use of the intellectual property that we seek and may lose competitive advantage which could result in harm to our business.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay expanded commercialization efforts for Argus II and our development and commercialization activities for other product candidates.

Although we are not currently aware of any litigation or other proceedings or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement related to the Argus II System, the medical device industry is characterized by many litigation cases regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Other parties may in the future allege that our activities infringe their patents or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. We may not have identified all the patents, patent applications or published literature that affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our product, by preventing the patentability of one or more aspects of our products or those of our licensors or by covering the same or similar technologies that may affect our ability to market our product.

In addition, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third-parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates, and we have done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain future licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

We may become involved in future lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or of our licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing.

The US Patent and Trademark Office may initiate interference proceedings to determine the priority of inventions described in or otherwise affecting our patents and patent applications or those of our collaborators or licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if a prevailing party does not offer us a license on terms that are acceptable to us. Litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distraction of our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the US.

Product liability lawsuits could divert our resources, result in substantial liabilities and reduce the commercial potential of our products.

We face a risk of product liability claims arising from the prosthesis being inserted into the eye, and it is possible that we may be held liable for eye injuries of patients who receive our product. These lawsuits may divert our management from pursuing our business strategy and may be costly to defend. In addition, if we are held liable in any of these lawsuits, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be forced to limit or forego further commercialization of one or more of our products. We maintain product liability insurance relating to our clinical trials and commercial sales, with an aggregate coverage limit under these insurance policies of $10,000,000, and while we believe this amount of insurance currently is sufficient to cover our product liability exposure, these limits may not prove adequate to fully cover potential liabilities. In addition, we may not be able to obtain or maintain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or otherwise to protect against potential product liability claims, which could prevent or inhibit the commercial production and sale of our products. If the use of our products harm or are alleged to harm people, we may be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims that exceed our policy limits and cause us significant losses that could seriously harm our financial condition or reputation.

Legislative or regulatory reform of the health care system in the US and foreign jurisdictions may adversely impact our business, operations or financial results.

Our industry is highly regulated and changes in law may adversely impact our business, operations or financial results. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and a related reconciliation bill were signed into law. This legislation changes the current system of healthcare insurance and benefits intended to broaden coverage and control costs. The law also contains provisions that will affect companies in the medical device industry and other healthcare related industries by imposing additional costs and changes to business practices.

Moreover, in some foreign countries, including countries in Europe and Canada, the pricing of approved medical devices is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take 12 months or longer after the receipt of regulatory approval and product launch. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. Our business could be materially harmed if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels.

We cannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future. Further federal and state legislative and regulatory developments appear likely in 2017, and we expect ongoing initiatives in the U.S and Europe. These reforms could have an adverse effect on our ability to obtain timely regulatory approval for new products and on anticipated revenues from the Argus II System and other product candidates, both of which may affect our overall financial condition.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

For so long as we remain an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act, we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various requirements that are applicable to public companies that are not “emerging growth companies,” including not being required to comply with the independent auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We may take advantage of these exemptions for so long as we are an “emerging growth company,” which could be as long as five years from November 14, 2014, the date of our initial public offering. Investors may find our common stock less attractive because we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock, and our stock price may be more volatile or may decline.

In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act also provides that an “emerging growth company” can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. However, we chose to “opt out” of this extended transition period, and as a result, we intend to comply with new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates that adoption of those standards may be required for non-emerging growth companies. Our decision to opt out of the extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards is irrevocable.

We are required to evaluate our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and any adverse results from such evaluation could result in a loss of investor confidence in our financial reports and have an adverse effect on our stock price.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. The report contains, among other matters, an assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of our fiscal year, including a statement as to whether or not our internal control over financial reporting is effective. This assessment must include disclosure of any material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting identified by management. If we are unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which could have an adverse effect on our stock price. See the Risk Factor labeled. “We have identified and reported an weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting and if our internal control over financial reporting remains not effective, investor confidence in our company may be adversely affected” on page 16 above.

Risks Relating to Our Financial Results and Need for Financing

Fluctuations in our quarterly operating results and cash flows could adversely affect the price of our common stock.

The revenues we generate and our operating results will be affected by numerous factors such as:

variations in the level of expenses related to our existing product candidates or preclinical and clinical development programs,

If our quarterly operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Any quarterly fluctuations in our operating results and cash flows may cause the price of our stock to fluctuate substantially. We believe that, in the near term, quarterly comparisons of our financial results are not necessarily meaningful and should not be relied upon as an indication of our future performance. 

We will need additional capital to support our operations and growth. Additional capital, may be difficult to obtain restricting our operations and resulting in additional dilution to our stockholders.

Our business requires additional capital for implementation of our long term business plan. We believe our cash, cash equivalents and other investments, along with the proceeds of approximately $20.1 million from our recently completed shareholder rights offering, together with revenue generated from the sale of Argus II units, may be sufficient to fund our operations over approximately the next 12 months. The actual amount of funds that we will need for our business development will be determined by many factors, some of which are beyond our control, and we may need funds sooner than currently anticipated. These factors include:

As we require additional funds, we may seek to fund our operations through the sale of additional equity securities, debt financing and strategic collaboration agreements. We cannot be sure that additional financing from any of these sources will be available when needed or that, if available, the additional financing will be obtained on terms favorable to us or our stockholders. If we raise additional funds by selling shares of our capital stock, the ownership interest of our current stockholders will be diluted. If we are unable to obtain additional funds on a timely basis or on terms favorable to us, we may be required to cease or reduce further commercialization of the Argus II System, to cease or reduce certain research and development projects, to sell some or all of our technology or assets or business units or to merge all or a portion of our business with another entity.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We have incurred operating losses since inception and may continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future.

We have had a history of operating losses and we expect that operating losses will continue into the near term. Although we have had sales of the Argus II product, these limited sales have not been sufficient to cover our operating expenses. Our ability to generate positive cash flow will also hinge on our ability to correctly price our product to our markets, expand the use of the Argus II System, develop the Orion I visual prosthesis and obtain government and private insurance reimbursement. As of December 31, 2016 we had total stockholders’ equity of $11.1 million and an accumulated deficit of $205.8 million. We cannot assure you that we will be profitable even if we successfully commercialize our products. Failure to become and remain profitable may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to raise capital and continue operations.

Our business is subject to international economic, political and other risks that could negatively affect our results of operations or financial position.

We derive a significant portion of our revenues from Europe, and we anticipate that revenue from Europe and other countries outside the US will increase. Accordingly, our operations are subject to risks associated with doing business internationally, including:

The realization of any of these or other risks associated with operating in Europe or other non-U.S. countries could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We are subject to stringent domestic and foreign medical device regulation and any unfavorable regulatory action may materially and adversely affect our financial condition and business operations.

Our products, development activities and manufacturing processes are subject to extensive and rigorous regulation by numerous government agencies, including the FDA and comparable foreign agencies. To varying degrees, each of these agencies monitors and enforces our compliance with laws and regulations governing the development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, marketing, distribution, and the safety and effectiveness of our medical devices. The process of obtaining marketing approval or clearance from the FDA and comparable foreign bodies for new products, or for enhancements, expansion of the indications or modifications to existing products, could:

Any of these occurrences that we might experience will cause our operations to suffer, harm our competitive standing and result in further losses that adversely affect our financial condition.

We have ongoing responsibilities under FDA and international regulations, both before and after a product is commercially released. For example, we are required to comply with the FDA’s Quality System Regulation (QSR), which mandates that manufacturers of medical devices adhere to certain quality assurance requirements pertaining among other things to validation of manufacturing processes, controls for purchasing product components, and documentation practices. As another example, the Medical Device Reporting regulation requires us to provide information to the FDA whenever there is evidence that reasonably suggests that a device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or, that a malfunction occurred which would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury upon recurrence. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements is subject to continual review and is monitored rigorously through periodic inspections by the FDA. If the FDA were to conclude that we are not in compliance with applicable laws or regulations, or that any of our medical devices are ineffective or pose an unreasonable health risk, the FDA could ban such medical devices, detain or seize such medical devices, order a recall, repair, replacement, or refund of such devices, or require us to notify health professionals and others that the devices present unreasonable risks of substantial harm to the public health. The FDA has been increasing its scrutiny of the medical device industry and the government is expected to continue to scrutinize the industry closely with inspections and possibly enforcement actions by the FDA or other agencies. Additionally, the FDA may restrict manufacturing and impose other operating restrictions, enjoin and restrain certain violations of applicable law pertaining to medical devices and assess civil or criminal penalties against our officers, employees, or us. Any adverse regulatory action, depending on its magnitude, may restrict us from effectively manufacturing, marketing and selling our products. In addition, negative publicity and product liability claims resulting from any adverse regulatory action could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The number of preclinical and clinical tests that will be required for regulatory approval varies depending on the disease or condition to be treated, the jurisdiction in which we are seeking approval and the regulations applicable to that particular medical device. Regulatory agencies, including those in the US, Canada, Europe and other countries where medical devices are regulated, can delay, limit or deny approval of a product for many reasons. For example,

The FDA may make requests or suggestions regarding conduct of our clinical trials, resulting in an increased risk of difficulties or delays in obtaining regulatory approval in the US. Any of these occurrences could prove materially harmful to our operations and business.

We are also subject to stringent government regulation in European and other foreign countries, which could delay or prevent our ability to sell our products in those jurisdictions.

We intend to pursue market authorizations for the Argus II System and other product candidates in additional jurisdictions. For us to market our products in Europe and some other international jurisdictions, we and our distributors and agents must obtain required regulatory registrations or approvals. The approval procedure varies among countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional testing, and the time and costs required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain an approval by the FDA. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. Violations of foreign laws governing use of medical devices may lead to actions against us by the FDA as well as by foreign authorities. We must also comply with extensive regulations regarding safety, efficacy and quality in those jurisdictions. We may not be able to obtain all the required regulatory registrations or approvals, or we may be required to incur significant costs in obtaining or maintaining any regulatory registrations or approvals we receive. Delays in obtaining any registrations or approvals required for marketing our products, failure to receive these registrations or approvals, or future loss of previously obtained registrations or approvals would limit our ability to sell our products internationally. For example, international regulatory bodies have adopted various regulations governing product standards, packaging requirements, labeling requirements, import restrictions, tariff regulations, duties and tax requirements. These regulations vary from country to country. In order to sell our products in Europe, we must maintain our ISO 13485:2003 certification and CE mark certification, which is an international symbol of quality and compliance with applicable European medical device directives. Failure to maintain the ISO 13485:2003 certification or CE mark certification or other international regulatory approvals would prevent us from selling in some countries in Europe and elsewhere. The failure to obtain these approvals could harm our business materially.

Even if we obtain clearance or approval to sell our products, we are subject to ongoing requirements and inspections that could lead to the restriction, suspension or revocation of our clearance.

We, as well as any potential collaborative partners such as distributors, will be required to adhere to applicable FDA regulations regarding good manufacturing practice, which include testing, control, and documentation requirements. We are subject to similar regulations in foreign countries. Even if regulatory approval of a product is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. Ongoing compliance with good manufacturing practice and other applicable regulatory requirements is strictly enforced in the United States through periodic inspections by state and federal agencies, including the FDA, and in international jurisdictions by comparable agencies. Failure to comply with these regulatory requirements could result in, among other things, warning letters, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, failure to obtain premarket clearance or premarket approval for devices, withdrawal of approvals previously obtained, and criminal prosecution. The restriction, suspension or revocation of regulatory approvals or any other failure to comply with regulatory requirements would limit our ability to operate and could increase our costs.

The CE marking regulations are subject to a significant effort to strengthen the regulatory regime for medical devices which, if adopted, will make clearance process more time consuming and costly for us to obtain access to and continue to market within the European markets.

We are subject to an annual audit of compliance with the rules necessary to support our CE Mark.  In 2012 the European Commission proposed a new regulatory scheme.  It is anticipated that that the proposals which are currently being discussed by the Council of the European Union, will impose significant additional obligations on medical device companies. We expect that these proposals will be adopted in 2017, and if so, the new regulations on medical devices would become effective at that time. Devices with a current CE marking may have to comply with additional, more challenging regulatory obligations, the details of which are not yet clarified.  We expect changes being made to regulations will include stricter requirements for clinical evidence and pre-market assessment of safety and performance, new classifications to indicate risk levels, requirements for third party testing by government accredited groups for some types of medical devices, and tightened and streamlined quality management system assessment procedures.  Additionally we anticipate that the new regulations will require clinical evidence as well as analytical performance levels, the details of which are yet to be provided. If the additional provisions proposed by the European Parliament are adopted, this could lead to the involvement of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in regulation of some types of medical devices, in the qualification and monitoring of notified bodies (NBs), and enhancing the roles of other bodies, including a new Medical Devices Coordination Group (MDCG).  The European Parliament’s proposed revisions would impose enhanced competence requirements for NBs and “special notified bodies” (SNBs) for specific categories of devices, such as implantable devices.  This could result in stricter conformity assessment procedures. Although the extent of the new regulations is currently uncertain, the medical device industry anticipates that there will be significant changes under these initiatives to the regulation of medical devices which will increase the time and costs for obtaining CE marking. 

We have no large-scale manufacturing experience, which could limit our growth.

Our limited manufacturing experience may not enable us to make products in the volumes that would be necessary for us to achieve a significant amount of commercial sales. Our product involves new and technologically complex materials and processes and we currently experience low yields on our manufacturing process. As we move from making small quantities of our product for clinical trials to larger quantities for commercial distribution, we must develop new manufacturing techniques and processes that allow us to scale production. We may not be able to establish and maintain reliable, efficient, full scale manufacturing at commercially reasonable costs in a timely fashion. Difficulties we encounter in manufacturing scale-up, or our failure to implement and maintain our manufacturing facilities in accordance with good manufacturing practice regulations, international quality standards or other regulatory requirements, could result in a delay or termination of production. To date, our manufacturing activities have largely been to provide units for clinical testing and initial commercial sales of the Argus II System. We may face substantial difficulties in establishing and maintaining manufacturing for our products at a larger commercial scale and those difficulties may impact the quality of our products and adversely affect our ability to increase sales.

To establish our sales and marketing infrastructure, we will need to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience delays or other difficulties in managing this growth.

As our development and commercialization plans and strategies evolve, we will need to expand the size of our employee base for managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other resources. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees. Our management team may have to use a substantial amount of time to manage these growth activities. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize the Argus II System and our other product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability timely and effectively to manage any future growth and related costs. We may not be able to effectively manage a rapid pace of growth and timely implement improvements to our management infrastructure and control systems.

We may acquire additional businesses or form strategic alliances in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such acquisitions or alliances.

We may acquire additional businesses or products, form strategic alliances or create joint ventures with third-parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. If we acquire businesses with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may have difficulty in developing, manufacturing and marketing the products of a newly acquired company that enhances the performance of our combined businesses or product lines to realize value from expected synergies. We cannot assure that, following an acquisition, we will achieve the revenues or specific net income that justifies the acquisition.

Our ability to utilize and benefit from our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

As of December 31, 2016, we had federal and state of California income tax net operating loss carryforwards, which may be applied to future taxable income, of approximately $142.3 million and $93.8 million, respectively. To the extent that we continue to generate taxable losses, unused losses will carry forward to offset future taxable income, if any, until these unused losses expire. However, we may be unable to use these losses to offset taxable income before our unused losses expire at various dates that range from 2023 through 2036 for federal net operating losses and from 2016 through 2036 for state net operating losses. Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards to offset its post-change taxable income may be limited. Limitations may also apply to the utilization of other pre-change tax attributes as a result of an ownership change. We have experienced ownership changes in the past. We may experience additional ownership changes as a result of shifts in our stock ownership, including shifts in our stock ownership that are outside of our control. As a result, our ability to use our pre-change NOL carryforwards to offset taxable income may be subject to limitations. In addition, there may be periods during which the use of NOL carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited under state tax law. For these reasons, we may not be able to utilize and benefit from a material portion of our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes.

Risks Related to the Securities Market, and Ownership of Our Common Stock

The price of our common stock has been and may continue to be volatile and the value of your investment could decline.

Medical technology stocks have historically experienced high levels of volatility. The trading prices of our common stock have fluctuated and may continue to fluctuate substantially. The market price of our common stock may be higher or lower than the price you pay, depending on many factors, some of which are beyond our control and may not be related to our operating performance. These fluctuations could cause you to lose substantially all or part of your investment in our common stock. Factors that could cause fluctuations in the trading price of our common stock include:

In addition, if the market for medical technology stocks or the stock market, in general, experiences a loss of investor confidence, the trading price of our common stock could decline for reasons unrelated to our business, results of operations or financial condition. The trading price of our common stock might also decline in reaction to events that affect other companies in our industry even if these events do not directly affect us. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been brought against that company. If our stock price is volatile, we may become the target of securities litigation. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources from our business. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public or private markets could reduce the price of our common stock and may dilute your voting power and ownership interest in us.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public or private markets, or the perception that these sales could occur, as well as sales of shares by directors or officers, or entities affiliated with our late, former Chairman and founder, Al Mann, which have occurred or which may occur from time to time, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock and may make it more difficult for you to sell your common stock at a time and price that you deem appropriate.

Certain of our stockholders have the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted for stockholder approval and may have interests that differ from those of our other stockholders.

As of December 31, 2016 our executive officers, key employees, directors, their affiliates and entities affiliated with our late, former Chairman and founder Al Mann, beneficially own in the aggregate approximately 54% of the outstanding shares of our common stock. As a result, these stockholders, if acting together, may be able to exercise significant influence over all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and the approval of significant corporate transactions. They may also have interests that differ from yours and may vote in a manner that is adverse to your interests. This concentration of voting power may have the effect of deterring, delaying or impeding actions that could be beneficial to you, including actions that may be supported by our board of directors, and deprive our shareholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common stock as part of a sale of our company and might ultimately affect the market price of our common stock.

We do not intend to pay dividends for the foreseeable future and, consequently, your ability to achieve a return on your investment will depend on appreciation in the price of our common stock.

We have never declared or paid any dividends on our common stock. We intend to retain any earnings to finance the operation and expansion of our business, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the future. As a result, you may only receive a return on your investment in our common stock if the market price of our common stock increases.

Future sales and issuances of our equity securities or rights to purchase our equity securities, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, would result in dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.

To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities; our stockholders may experience substantial dilution. We may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be diluted by subsequent sales. Such sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights superior to existing stockholders.

The public market for our common stock has been volatile since completion of our initial public offering in November 2014. This volatility may affect the ability of our investors to sell their shares as well as the price at which they sell their shares.

We completed our initial public offering in November 2014. Since that time, our shares closing prices have ranged from $1.35 per share to $23.60 per share and day-to-day trading often has been volatile. This volatility may continue or increase in the future. The market price for the shares may be significantly affected by factors such as progress in the development of our technology, progress in our pre-clinical and clinical trials, agreements with research facilities or co-development partners, commercialization of our technology, coverage by third party payers, variations in quarterly and yearly operating results, general trends in the medical device industry, and changes in FDA and foreign regulations affecting us and our industry. Furthermore, in recent years the stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that are unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of the affected companies. Those broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Substantial future sales of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.

If our common stockholders (including those persons who may become common stockholders upon exercise of our options or warrants) sell substantial amounts of our common stock, or the public market perceives that stockholders might sell substantial amounts of our common stock, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly. Such sales also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price that our management deems appropriate.

We have the right to issue shares of preferred stock. If we were to issue preferred stock, it is likely to have rights, preferences and privileges that may adversely affect the common stock.

We are authorized to issue 10,000,000 shares of “blank check” preferred stock, with such rights, preferences and privileges as may be determined from time-to-time by our board of directors. Our board of directors is empowered, without stockholder approval, to issue preferred stock in one or more series, and to fix for any series the dividend rights, dissolution or liquidation preferences, redemption prices, conversion rights, voting rights, and other rights, preferences and privileges for the preferred stock. No shares of preferred stock are presently issued and outstanding and we have no immediate plans to issue shares of preferred stock. The issuance of shares of preferred stock, depending on the rights, preferences and privileges attributable to the preferred stock, could adversely reduce the voting rights and powers of the common stock and the portion of our assets allocated for distribution to common stockholders in a liquidation event, and could also result in dilution in the book value per share of our common stock. The preferred stock could also be utilized, under certain circumstances, as a method for raising additional capital or discouraging, delaying or preventing a change in control of our company, to the detriment of the holders of our common stock. We cannot assure you that we will not, under certain circumstances, issue shares of our preferred stock.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties

Our principal office and facilities are located at 12744 San Fernando Road, Suite 400, Sylmar, California 91342, and consists of approximately 45,351 rentable square feet at a base rent of approximately $34,500 per month. Our lease expires in February 2022 and grants us an option to extend the lease term for an additional 60 months period. We originally rented these premises from Mann Biomedical Park LLC, an entity affiliated with our former Chairman of the Board, Alfred E. Mann. We believe that the terms of this lease are at least as favorable as those that may have been obtained from a non-affiliated third party. We believe that these premises are adequate for our foreseeable needs. In November 2014, the industrial center in which these premises are located was sold to an independent third party.

Our European office is located on the Innovation Park at EPFL, Rue Jean Daniel Colladon, CH 1015 Lausanne. The lease consists of 180 square meters at a base rent of 8,200 CHF per month, or currently about $8,200 per month. Our lease is currently monthly with a six month notice required for termination, with the Foundation for the Innovation Park at EPFL.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We are not a party to pending material legal proceedings other than those involving Pixium Vision, and Retina Implant AG described in “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property and Other Legal Matters”.

Item 4. Reserved

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

(a) Market Price, Dividends and Related Matters

Second Sight’s common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “EYES.” The following table sets forth the high and low closing sales prices of our common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Capital Market for the following time periods.

On March 14, 2017, the closing sales price reported for our common stock was $1.27 per share, and as of that date there were approximately 157 shareholders of record.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying any dividends in the foreseeable future.

The performance graph below compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock with that of the Nasdaq Composite index and the Nasdaq Medical Equipment index. The initial public offering price of our common stock was $9.00 per share and the closing price was $19.97 per share on November 19, 2014 (the date our common stock first commenced trading on Nasdaq). The chart assumes $100 was invested at the close of the market on November 19, 2014 in our common stock, the Nasdaq Composite index and the Nasdaq Medical Equipment index.

Second Sight Medical Products, Inc. Comparison of Total Return

Among Second Sight, the Nasdaq Composite Index and the Nasdaq Medical Device Equipment Index

Use of Proceeds from June 2016 Rights Offering and Completion of March 2017 Rights Offering

In June 2016, the Company successfully completed a Rights Offering to existing stockholders (File No. 333-209113), raising proceeds of $19.5 million net of cash offering costs, and selling 5,978,465 shares of common stock at $3.315 per share, representing 85% of the Company’s stock price at the close of the Rights Offering. Through December 31, 2016, $8.6 million of the $19.5 million of the net proceeds from the IPO were used to fund our ongoing business operations, to expand sales and marketing efforts, enhance our current Argus II product, gain regulatory approvals for additional indications, and continue research and development into next generation technology and approximately $10.9 million remained deposited in various cash and money market funds. None of the proceeds was used for construction of plant, building and facilities, the purchase of real estate, or the acquisition of any business

In March 2017 we completed a Rights Offering to existing stockholders (File No. 333-215463), raising proceeds of approximately $19.7 million net of cash offering costs, and selling 13,652,341 units, each consisting of one share of common stock and one warrant, at $1.47 per unit. We will use the proceeds to further develop and enhance our products, support operations and for general corporate purposes.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and the notes to those consolidated financial statements. The consolidated statements of operations data set forth below for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 are derived from, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to, the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K. The consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2014 is derived from the audited consolidated financial statements not included herein, but which were previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of many factors. The consolidated results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for any future period. The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in Part IV, Item 15 of this Form 10-K and in conjunction with the “Risk Factors” included in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K.

Business Overview

Second Sight was founded in 1998 with a mission to develop, manufacture, and market prosthetic devices that restore useful vision to blind individuals. Our principal offices are located in Sylmar, California, approximately 25 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. We also have an office in Lausanne, Switzerland, that manages our commercial and clinical operations in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia-Pacific.

Our current product, the Argus ^® II System, treats outer retinal degenerations, such as retinitis pigmentosa, also referred to as RP. RP is a hereditary disease, affecting an estimated 1.5 million people worldwide including about 100,000 people in the United States, that causes a progressive degeneration of the light-sensitive cells of the retina, leading to significant visual impairment and ultimately blindness. The Argus II System is the only retinal prosthesis approved in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and was the first approved retinal prosthesis in the world. By restoring a form of useful vision in patients who otherwise have total sight loss, the Argus II System can provide benefits which include: 

The Argus II System provides an artificial form of vision that differs from the vision of people with normal sight. It does not restore normal vision and it does not reverse the progression of the disease. Results vary among patients: while the majority of patients receive significant benefit from the Argus II, some patients report receiving little or no benefit.

Our major corporate, clinical and regulatory milestones include:

Currently, after more than 18 years of research and development, more than $180 million of investment and over $34 million of grants awarded in support of our technology development, we employ over 100 people in the development (research, engineering and clinical), manufacture, and commercialization of the Argus II System and future products.

Going Concern

From inception, our operations have been funded primarily through the sales of our common stock, as well as from the issuance of convertible debt, research and clinical grants, and limited product revenue generated by the sale of our Argus II System. During the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, we funded our business primarily through:

On March 6, 2017, the Company successfully completed a registered Rights Offering to existing stockholders in which it sold 13,652,341 Units at $1.47 per Unit, which was the closing price of the Company common stock on that date. Each Unit consisted of a share of the Company’s common stock and a warrant to purchase an additional share of the Company’s stock for $1.47. The warrants have a five-year life. At the Company’s discretion, the warrants are redeemable on 30 days’ notice (i) at any time 24 months after the date of issuance, (ii) if the shares of our common stock are trading at 200% of the Subscription Price for 15 consecutive trading days and (iii) if all of the independent directors vote in favor of redeeming the warrants. Holders may be able to sell or exercise warrants prior to any announced redemption date and we will redeem outstanding warrants not exercised by the announced redemption date for a nominal amount of $0.01 per Warrant. We have applied to list the Warrants for trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol “EYESW.” As of the date of this report we cannot assure that our listing application will be approved, or if approved, that a trading market for the Warrants will develop.

Our financial statements have been presented on the basis that our business is a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. We are subject to the risks and uncertainties associated with a business with one product line and limited commercial product revenues, including limitations on our operating capital resources and uncertain demand for our products. We have incurred recurring operating losses and negative operating cash flows since inception, and we expect to continue to incur operating losses and negative operating cash flows for at least the next few years. Management has made estimates of future results of operations, using a wide range of assumptions regarding the level of revenue generated, operating expense incurred and future cash flows, which suggest a wide range of possible future outcomes. However, assuming financial results in 2017 similar to the results achieved in 2016, management has concluded that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, and our independent registered public accounting firm, in its report on our 2016 consolidated financial statements, has raised substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

No assurances can be given that we will ultimately be able to raise sufficient funds through other means so as to be able to continue operating our business at current levels through the end of first quarter of 2018.

Insurance Reimbursement

Obtaining reimbursement from governmental and private insurance companies is critical to our commercial success. Due to the cost of the Argus II System, our sales would be limited without the availability of third party reimbursement. In the US, coding, coverage, and payment are necessary for the surgical procedure and Argus II system to be reimbursed by payers. Coding has been established for the device and the surgical procedure. Coverage and payment vary by payer. The majority of Argus II patients are eligible for Medicare, and coverage is primarily provided through traditional Medicare (sometimes referred to as Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) or Medicare Advantage. A small percentage of patients are covered by commercial insurers.

Second Sight employs dedicated employees and consultants with insurance reimbursement expertise engaged to expand and enhance coverage decisions. Currently, five MAC jurisdictions comprising 17 states have agreed to cover the Argus II System when medically necessary for the FDA approved indications. The MACs now covering the Argus II include First Coast Service Options (Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S.V.I.), CGS Administrators, LLC (for the states of Ohio and Kentucky), Palmetto GBA (for the states of North and South Carolina, West Virginia and Virginia, other than the counties of Arlington and Fairfax in Virginia and the City of Arlington in Virginia), National Government Services, Inc. (NGS), Jurisdiction 6 (for the states of Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin), and NGS, Jurisdiction K (for the states of Connecticut, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont). We are actively engaged with the remaining MACs and are committed to supporting their requests for additional information and clinical evidence. We expect that additional positive coverage decisions will be issued over time but cannot predict timing or ultimate success with each MAC.

During the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, 12 individuals in the US and Canada were implanted with the Argus II technology. Of the 12 patients, nine were Medicare FFS patients, one was a Medicare Advantage patient, one was a Veteran’s Administration patient and the remaining one was a privately funded patient in Canada.

Within Europe, we have obtained reimbursement approval or funding in Germany, France and one region of Italy. On December 22, 2016, NHS England announced it would cover 10 Argus implantations as part of a Commissioning through Evaluation (CtE) program. The CtE program is especially designed for treatments that show significant promise for the future, while new clinical and patient experience data are collected within a formal evaluation program. This program is similar to the Forfait Innovation program in France. NHS England is known to be under significant financial pressure and also highly selective in adopting innovative technologies – which must demonstrate sufficient value for the cost expended.

We are seeking reimbursement approval in other countries including Belgium, Switzerland, Turkey and we are also seeking reimbursement approval in additional regions of Italy. In France, Second Sight was selected to receive the first "Forfait Innovation" (Innovation Bundle) from the Ministry of Health, which is a special funding program for breakthrough procedures to be introduced into clinical practice. As part of this program, Second Sight is conducting a post-market study in France which has enrolled a total of 18 subjects and will follow them for two years.  The French program will fund implantation of up to 18 additional patients that will not be part of the post-market study. After review of the study’s results, we expect Argus II therapy to be covered and funded through the standard payment system in France, however, we can provide no assurance that the French government will continue to fund the Argus II after the first 36 implants. 

To date, we have not faced traditional sales challenges in any of our markets, largely due to the currently unmet clinical need and the lack of any other commercially available device or competitive treatment for RP-caused profound blindness. Our marketing activities have focused on raising awareness of the Argus II System with potential patients, implanting physicians, and referring physicians. Our marketing activities include exhibiting, sponsoring symposia, and securing podium presence at professional and trade shows, securing journalist coverage in popular and trade media, attending patient meetings focused on educating patients about existing and future treatments, and sponsoring information sessions for the Argus II System. In the US, our efforts in 2017 will focus on media ads dedicated to RP patients and their families. These ads will be placed in geographic areas where we have Centers of Excellence committed to Argus II.

Product and Clinical Development Plans

The Argus II System is currently approved for RP patients with bare or no light perception in the US, and in Europe for severe to profound vision loss due to outer retinal degeneration, such as from retinitis pigmentosa (RP), choroideremia, and other similar conditions. The number of people who are legally blind due to RP is estimated to be about 25,000 in the US, 42,000 in Europe, and about 375,000 total worldwide. A subset of these patients would be eligible for the Argus II System since the approved baseline vision for the Argus II System is worse than legally blind (20/200).

The Company believes an opportunity exists to expand the use of its Argus II technology to better sighted individuals with RP who are currently not being treated. In order to achieve this market expansion, the Company plans to start collecting clinical data in 2017 and is undertaking multiple development efforts to improve the technology’s performance, including:

We believe we can further expand our market to include nearly all profoundly blind individuals, other than those who are blind due to preventable diseases or due to brain damage, by developing a visual cortical prosthesis. We refer to this product as the Orion I visual prosthesis system. We estimate that there are approximately 5.8 million people worldwide who are legally blind due to causes other than preventable conditions, RP or AMD. If approved for marketing, the FDA and other regulatory agencies will determine the subset of these patients who are eligible for the Orion I.

Our objective in designing and developing the Orion I visual prosthesis system is to bypass the optic nerve and directly stimulate the part of the brain responsible for vision. We plan to submit an IDE application to the FDA in 2017 to begin a human feasibility study of the Orion I visual prosthesis system. We also expect to implant and activate our Orion I visual prosthesis system in human subjects during 2017. This study will confirm initial findings in our human pilot study we announced in Q4 2016 and provide the first human data of a fully functional wireless visual cortical stimulator system including the external video camera system. This initial study in a small number of subjects, if successful, should also form the basis for an expansion to a pivotal clinical trial in 2018.

We began a five-subject pilot study in the United Kingdom in June 2015, to determine the utility of the Argus II System for use in persons suffering from dry AMD. In Q2 2016 we completed enrollment and continue to track the subjects via the site in Manchester. The subjects have reported the ability to integrate their native peripheral vision with their artificial central vision. Subjects also report that they enjoy using their Argus system. To date, however, the subjects have not demonstrated significant objective benefit over their residual vision when using the Argus II. We plan to continue testing these subjects and will submit a revised clinical protocol in early 2017. Our approaches to improving the effective resolution in RP patients may also work in AMD patients, which could help us demonstrate objective benefit over their residual vision. The revised protocol will request approval to test new retinal stimulation techniques with the existing subjects with the belief they will benefit. If this clinical testing is successful, we plan to enroll additional patients in our pursuit of a solution for this large patient population.

Recently Adopted Accounting Standards

In August 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-15 (ASU 2014-15), Presentation of Financial Statements — Going Concern (Subtopic 205-10). ASU 2014-15 provided guidance as to management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. In connection with our preparing these financial statements we evaluated whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. The Company believes that it does not have sufficient funds to support its operations through the end of first quarter of 2018.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In November 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-17 (ASU 2015-17), Income Taxes (Topic 740): Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes. ASU 2015-17 requires that deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. ASU 2015-17 is effective for financial statements issued for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. Earlier application is permitted as of the beginning of an interim or annual reporting period. The adoption of ASU 2015-17 is not expected to have any impact on Company’s financial statement presentation or disclosures.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), which supersedes all existing guidance on accounting for leases in ASC Topic 840.  ASU 2016-02 is intended to provide enhanced transparency and comparability by requiring lessees to record right-of-use assets and corresponding lease liabilities on the balance sheet.  ASU 2016-02 will continue to classify leases as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the statement of income.  ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years.  Early adoption is permitted.  ASU 2016-02 is required to be applied with a modified retrospective approach to each prior reporting period presented with various optional practical expedients.  We are currently assessing the potential impact of adopting ASU 2016-02 on our financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting.  ASU 2016-09 changes how companies account for certain aspects of share-based payment awards to employees, including the accounting for income taxes, forfeitures and statutory tax withholding requirements, as well as classification in the statement of cash flows.  ASU 2016-09 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within those annual periods.  If an entity early adopts in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period and the entity must adopt all of the amendments from ASU 2016-09 in the same period.  We have determined that the impact of this standard when adopted in 2017 will not be material to the financial statements and related disclosures.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments.  ASU 2016-15 refines how companies classify certain aspects of the cash flow statement in regards to debt prepayment, settlement of debt instruments, contingent consideration payments, proceeds from insurance claims and life insurance policies, distribution from equity method investees, beneficial interests in securitization transactions and separately identifiable cash flows.  ASU 2016-15 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within the fiscal years.  No early adoption is permitted.  We are currently assessing the potential impact of adopting ASU 2016-15 on our financial statements and related disclosures.

In October 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-16, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory, which reduces the complexity in the accounting standards by allowing the recognition of current and deferred income taxes for an intra-entity asset transfer, other than inventory, when the transfer occurs.  Historically, recognition of the income tax consequence was not recognized until the asset was sold to an outside party.  This amendment should be applied on a modified retrospective basis through a cumulative-effect adjustment directly to retained earnings as of the beginning of the period of adoption.  ASU 2016-16 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods within those annual reporting periods.  Early adoption is permitted for all entities as of the beginning of an annual reporting period for which financial statements (interim or annual) have not been issued or made available for issuance.  That is, earlier adoption should be in the first interim period if an entity issues interim financial statements.  We are currently evaluating the impact of ASU 2016-16 on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09 (ASC 606) - Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASU 2014-09”), which provides guidance for revenue recognition. This ASU will supersede the revenue recognition requirements in Topic 605, and most industry specific guidance. The standard's core principle is that revenue is recognized when promised goods or services are transferred to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. To achieve that core principle, an entity should apply the following steps:

Step 1: Identify the contract(s) with a customer

Step 2: Identify the performance obligations in the contract.

Step 3: Determine the transaction price.

Step 4: Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract.

Step 5: Recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation.

The guidance in ASU 2014-09 also specifies the accounting for some costs to obtain or fulfill a contract with a customer. ASC 606 requires the Company to make significant judgments and estimates. ASC 606 also requires more extensive disclosures regarding the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers.

The FASB has also issued several additional ASUs which amend ASU 2014-09. The amendments do not change the core principle of the guidance in ASC 606.

Public business entities are required to apply the guidance of ASC 606 to annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017 (2018 for calendar year end reporting companies), including interim reporting periods within that reporting period. Accordingly, the Company will adopt ASU 606 in the first quarter of 2018.

An entity should apply ASC 606 using one of the following two transition methods:

The Company expects that it will adopt ASC 606 following the modified retrospective approach.

The Company has completed an initial assessment of adoption of ASC 606, but has additional steps to complete in its assessment phase. The Company will continue to assess all potential impacts of the standard, and currently believes the most significantly impacted areas are the following:

The Company has not yet estimated the financial statement impact of the expected changes. The Company will continue to assess the impact of ASC 606 as it works through the adoption in 2017, and there remain areas still to be fully concluded upon. Further, there remain ongoing interpretive reviews, which may alter the Company's conclusions and the financial impact of Topic 606.

Management believes that any other recently issued, but not yet effective, authoritative guidance, if currently adopted, would not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statement presentation or disclosures.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The following discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Certain accounting policies and estimates are particularly important to the understanding of our financial position and results of operations and require the application of significant judgment by our management or can be materially affected by changes from period to period in economic factors or conditions that are outside of our control. As a result, they are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty. In applying these policies, our management uses their judgment to determine the appropriate assumptions to be used in the determination of certain estimates. Those estimates are based on our historical operations, our future business plans and projected financial results, the terms of existing contracts, our observance of trends in the industry, information provided by our customers and information available from other outside sources, as appropriate. See Note 2 of notes to our consolidated financial statements for a more complete description of our significant accounting policies.

Revenue Recognition. The Company’s revenue is derived primarily from the sale of its Argus II retinal implant, which is implanted during retinal surgery to restore some functional vision to patients blinded by Retinitis Pigmentosa. The Company sells to a variety of customers including university hospitals, large medical centers and distributors.

Revenue is recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the fee is fixed or determinable, collectability is probable, and delivery has occurred.

Revenue is generated under sales agreements with multiple deliverables (multiple-element arrangements), comprising the following deliverables:

The deliverables may vary by transaction. 

The Company evaluates each deliverable in a multiple-element arrangement to determine whether it represents a separate unit of accounting. An element constitutes a separate unit of accounting when the delivered item has standalone value and delivery of the undelivered element is probable and within the Company's control. The Company has determined that the elements listed above do not have standalone value to the customer until delivery of all components has occurred.  Accordingly, revenue from multiple-element arrangements is recognized when delivery of all of deliverables has taken place and all other revenue recognition criteria have been met.  Generally, revenue recognition occurs at the time of implantation, but revenue recognition can be delayed if certain training has not been delivered to the implanting sites, or if other revenue recognition criteria have not been met.

In the United States, the amount of revenue recognized per unit has been limited in some situations due to the uncertainties of the reimbursement environment and payment terms. In such cases, revenue is not recognized until the consideration becomes fixed, generally when paid to the Company.

In order to determine whether collection is reasonably assured, the Company assesses a number of factors, including creditworthiness of the customer and medical insurance coverage. The Company may periodically grant extended payment terms to customers. In such situations, the Company defers the recognition of revenue until collection becomes probable, which is generally upon receipt of payment.

The Company also sells surgical supplies to customers and recognizes revenue on these products when they are shipped and other revenue recognition criteria have been met.

The Company sells through distributors in certain countries.  The Company provides these distributors with clinical start-up kits, surgical supplies and the Argus II System, as well as training them to provide pre- and post-surgical support.  The Company monitors the surgery. Other than surgical support which is provided by the Company, the distributor is responsible for delivering products and services to its customers.  In the past, the Company has allowed distributors to return or exchange products in certain situations. Due to the Company’s continuing involvement and its returns policy, the Company recognizes revenue from distributors when the implantation procedure has been performed by the distributor’s customer, and all other revenue recognition criteria between the Company and the distributor have been met.

Stock-Based Compensation. Pursuant to Financial Accounting Standards Board ASC 718 Share-Based Payment (“ASC 718”), the Company records stock-based compensation expense for all stock-based awards. Under ASC 718, the Company estimates the fair value of stock options granted using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The fair value for awards that are expected to vest is then amortized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period of the award, which is generally the option vesting term.

Patent Costs. The Company has over 381 domestic and foreign patents. Due to the uncertainty associated with the successful development of one or more commercially viable products based on Company’s research efforts and any related patent applications, all patent costs, including patent-related legal, filing fees and other costs, including internally generated costs, are expensed as incurred. Patent costs are included in general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations.

Convertible Promissory Notes and Warrants. The warrants and embedded beneficial conversion feature of convertible promissory notes are classified as equity under FASB ASC Topic 815-40 “Derivatives and Hedging — Contracts in Entity’s Own Equity”. The Company allocates the proceeds of the convertible promissory notes between convertible promissory notes and the financial instruments related to warrants associated with convertible promissory notes based on their relative fair values at the commitment date. The fair value of the financial instruments related to warrants associated with convertible promissory notes is determined utilizing the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the respective allocated proceeds to the warrants is recorded in additional paid-in capital. The Company utilized the Black-Scholes option valuation model using the same valuation assumptions as described herein for Stock Based Compensation. The embedded beneficial conversion feature associated with convertible promissory notes is recognized and measured by allocating a portion of the proceeds equal to the intrinsic value of that feature to additional paid-in capital in accordance with ASC Topic 470-20 “Debt — Debt with Conversion and Other Options.” The portion of debt discount resulting from the allocation of proceeds to the financial instruments related to warrants associated with convertible promissory notes is being amortized over the life of the convertible promissory notes. For the portion of debt discount resulting from the allocation of proceeds to the beneficial conversion feature, it is amortized over the term of the notes from the respective dates of issuance.

Long Term Investor Right. Each beneficial owner (“IPO Shareholder”) of the Company’s common stock, who purchased shares directly in the offering (“IPO Shares”), qualified to receive up to one additional share of common stock from the Company for each share purchased in the offering (“IPO Supplemental Shares”) pursuant to the Long Term Investor Right that was included with each IPO Share. To qualify for receipt of IPO Supplemental Shares, an IPO Shareholder was required to take action to become the direct registered owner of its IPO Shares within 90 days following the closing date of the offering, or by February 22, 2015. Furthermore, IPO Shareholders were required to hold their IPO Shares in their own name and not place them in “street name” or trade them at any time during the 24 month period immediately following the IPO closing date. This Long Term Investors Right was non-detachable and transferable only in limited circumstances.

The Company issued IPO Supplemental Shares to IPO Shareholders who did not otherwise forfeit their Long Term Investor Right since, during the two-year period immediately following the IPO closing date, the Company’s common stock did not trade at or above $18.00 per share (200% of the IPO price per share) for any five consecutive day period.

The formula to determine the number of IPO Supplemental Shares to issue on a trigger of the Long Term Investor Right was: (i) $18.00 minus (ii) the average of the highest consecutive closing prices in any 90 day trading period on the principal exchange during the two years after the Closing Date (the “Measurement Average”) divided by the Measurement Average. Fractional shares issuable to a qualifying IPO Shareholder resulting from the calculation were rounded up to the next whole share of common stock, taking into account the aggregate number of Long Term Investor Rights of a holder. Since the highest average of consecutive closing prices over any 90 calendar day period was $13.96 per share, each Long-Term Investor Right was entitled to 0.2894 additional shares of common stock, which is calculated as: ($18.00 - $13.96)/$13.96.

The amount of IPO Supplemental Shares issued was computed by an independent public accountant as soon as practicable following the second anniversary of the Closing Date. The Company in turn delivered 355,095 shares to these shareholders.

The Right is an equity instrument that was accounted for as a component of the actual price per common share paid by the investor in the IPO. For basic earnings per share, the common shares associated with the Right will be included in basic earnings per share beginning on their effective issuance date in November 2016.

Results of Operations

Net sales. Our net sales are derived primarily from the sale of our Argus II System. We began selling our products in Europe in 2011, Saudi Arabia in 2012, in the United States and Canada in 2014, and in Turkey in 2015. Our objective is to increase our product revenue over the next several years as we pursue commercialization of our product, as our product becomes more well-known and accepted in the market, and as insurance coverage becomes more widespread.

Cost of sales. Cost of sales includes the salaries, benefits, material, overhead, third party costs, warranty, charges for excess and obsolete inventory, and other costs required to make our Argus II System at our Sylmar, California facility. Historically, our cost of sales has been greater than our revenues, which has resulted in gross losses. However, in the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2014 and for all of fiscal 2015, due to higher revenues and increased manufacturing output and efficiencies, we generated a positive gross margin. Our product involves new and technologically complex materials and processes. As we move from making small quantities of our product for clinical trials to larger quantities for commercial distribution, we are developing new manufacturing techniques and processes that we expect to allow us to scale production. We are currently experiencing low yields on our manufacturing process, but we expect that over the next few years we will be able to refine our processes and improve our manufacturing yields. Accordingly, as we produce in quantities sufficient to support our commercial efforts, we expect that we will generate a positive gross profit.

Operating Expenses. We generally recognize our operating expenses as we incur them in four general operational categories: research and development, clinical and regulatory, sales and marketing, and general and administrative. Our operating expenses also include a non-cash component related to the amortization of deferred stock-based compensation allocated to research and development, clinical and regulatory, sales and marketing and general and administrative personnel. From time to time we have received grants from institutions or agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, to help fund the some of the cost of our development efforts. We have recorded these grants as offsets to the costs as they are incurred to complete the related work.

Interest expense on convertible promissory notes. Interest expense was a non-cash expense associated with the Company’s convertible promissory notes. Simple interest was accrued at 7.5% per annum based on the face value of the convertible promissory notes outstanding during the year. The accrued interest was added to the amount of outstanding debt, but does not earn additional interest. The terms of the convertible promissory notes provided for automatic conversion of principal and accrued interest into equity on our IPO, at $5.00 per share. Accordingly, subsequent to our IPO in the fourth quarter of 2014, the Company no longer incurred interest expense on the convertible promissory notes.

Amortization of discount on convertible promissory notes. As discussed more fully above, our convertible promissory notes issued during 2012 and 2013 were issued with detachable warrants and an embedded beneficial conversion feature, which were recorded as an issuance discount with an offsetting credit to additional paid-in capital. This issuance discount was amortized as a non-cash charge over the term of the convertible promissory note. The terms of the convertible promissory notes provided for conversion into equity on an IPO, at $5.00 per share. At December 31, 2013, the unamortized issuance cost related to our convertible promissory notes was $12.0 million. As a result of our IPO in November 2014, $7.0 million of unamortized issuance costs were charged to income due to the automatic conversion of all outstanding convertible promissory notes into common stock.

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2016 and 2015

Net Sales. Our net sales decreased from $8.9 million in 2015 to $4.0 million in 2016, a decrease of $4.9 million, or 55%. This decrease in net sales was due to a lower number of implants in 2016 versus 2015 as well as a lower level of revenue per implant. In 2016 there were 42 implants compared to 75 in 2016, and the amount of revenue recognized per implant declined from $119,000 in 2015 to $95,000 in 2016.

In 2016, there were 30 implants in Europe and the Middle East (EMEA) compared to 43 implants in the prior year. The decrease in implants in EMEA is primarily attributable to a decrease of 12 implants in France due, in part, to a potential competitor recruiting RP patients for a clinical trial in France. Germany and Italy both grew by one implant going from five in 2015 to six in 2016. Elsewhere in EMEA, we saw growth in Saudi Arabia and Turkey with implants increasing by four and three, respectively, in 2016 versus the prior year.

In the United States and Canada (North America), implants decreased to 12 in 2016 compared to 32 in 2015. The decline in U.S. implants was due, in part, to the 2016 Medicare reimbursement level being reduced to $95,000, which in early Q1 was approximately $50,000 below our U.S. list price. We made the decision in late February 2016 to implement temporary discounts in the U.S., lasting through December 2016, to alleviate concerns of our customers that they would lose money on Argus II patient cases due to the difference between the device cost and the reimbursement amount. Additionally, we had hired a new sales leader for North America in the second quarter of 2016 and experienced some turnover in the sales staff. With our new sales team in place, together with a clearly defined Center of Excellence strategy for the U.S., we expect to see a higher level of implants in coming quarters.

The amount of revenue recognized per implant in a period depends on several factors, including reimbursement policies set by private and government payers, the mix of implants between EMEA and North America, exchange rates, payment terms that may affect revenue recognition, and sales of ancillary products, such as clinical start-up kits and surgical supplies. Given the CMS pricing decision made in 2015 to reduce the 2016 reimbursement rate for the Argus II implant and related procedure, we made the determination in late February 2016 to temporarily discount the Argus device in the US to approximately $92,000 compared to the $144,000 we sold the product for in 2015. Accordingly, the average revenue per implant was lower in 2016 than it was in 2015. For 2017, with the CMS reimbursement rate of $150,000 approved for U.S. Medicare patients, we expect our global average revenue per implant to increase to $110,000 to $120,000 depending on the geographic mix of implants.

In the United States, the amount of sales revenue recognized per unit has been limited in some situations due to the uncertainties of the reimbursement environment and payment terms. Favorable claims outcomes and the development of positive coverage policies in the United States may eventually result in greater and earlier revenue recognition.

Cost of sales. Cost of sales increased from $5.3 million in 2015 to $10.1 million in 2016, an increase of $4.8 million or 91%. With the reduced level of implants in 2016, the cost of goods sold related to implants declined in 2016, however, we incurred significant charges for excess inventory and unabsorbed overhead costs. While we are cautiously optimistic about our sales potential going forward, Management believed it was prudent to take the reduced level of sales activity during 2016 as compared to 2015 into consideration when estimating excess inventory. Accordingly, we booked a total of $4.7 million of reserves for slow moving inventory in 2016. Also, we made the decision during the second quarter of 2016 to reduce our production levels, lay off certain direct manufacturing personnel, and reassign certain other indirect personnel to where the Company could better utilize their skills. Because of the reduced production output, we are spreading our production costs over a lower number of units, which resulted in approximately $2.8 million of unabsorbed production variances that we recognized as period costs during the year. In future quarters, if implant volumes improve from current levels, we may increase the production of Argus II units and components. Until then, we will utilize a significant portion of our manufacturing resources to support our research and development efforts, including our future Orion product.

Research and development expense. Research and development expense increased from $3.0 million in 2015 to $5.3 million in 2016, an increase of $2.3 million, or 77%. The increase is attributable to increased activity in research and development as work to get new products ready for clinical trials and market release. The increase consists of approximately $962,000 related to charges from manufacturing for work on prototypes, $551,000 for people related costs, $671,000 for outside services and consultants and $468,000 for supplies. These increased expenditures were offset, in part, by $488,000 of higher grant revenue recognized in 2016 versus 2015. Excluding grant revenues, which are used to offset expenses, research and development expense increased from $4.9 million in 2015 to $7.7, an increase of $2.8 million, or 57%, in 2016 compared to 2015. We expect research and development costs to increase in the future as we pursue further enhancements of our existing product and develop technology for our potential future cortical implant product.

Clinical and regulatory expense. Clinical and regulatory expense decreased from $3.5 million in 2016 to $2.7 million in 2015, a decrease of $0.8 million, or 23%. This decrease is primarily attributable to the cost of post-market and other clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of our current product, to assess possible enhancements to our existing product, and to assess the efficacy of our technology for treating blindness due to Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Selling and marketing expense. Selling and marketing expense increased from $8.9 million in 2015 to $9.0 million in 2016, an increase of $0.1 million or 1%. This small increase in costs represent the netting of a decrease of $663,000 in lower people related costs, including lower salaries, stock based compensation, and commissions, against $863,000 in higher costs for consultants related to items such as customer outreach programs and insurance reimbursement for our products in the U.S. and foreign markets. While we expect these costs to increase in the future as we increase our selling and marketing resources to accelerate the commercialization of our product, we expect selling and marketing expense to decrease over time when expressed as a percentage of product revenue. 

General and administrative expense. General and administrative expense increased from $8.2 million in 2015 to $10.1 million in 2016, an increase of $1.9 million, or 23%. This increase is primarily attributable to $900,000 of higher stock-based compensation charges than in 2015, and $718,000 in higher cash compensation costs.

Net loss. The net loss was $33.2 million in 2016, as compared to $20.0 million in 2015. The $13.2 million increase in net loss from 2015 to 2016 was primarily attributable to a $9.8 million decrease in gross profit, caused by lower revenues and large charges for excess inventory and unabsorbed manufacturing overhead, and $3.4 million in increased operating expenses.

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2015 and 2014

Net Sales. Our net sales increased from $3.4 million in 2014 to $8.9 million in 2015, an increase of $5.5 million, or 162%. This increase in net sales was primarily due to selling 75 Argus II systems that were implanted in 2015 compared to 29 in 2014. Average revenue recognized per implant was fairly constant at approximately $119,000 in 2015 compared to $117,000 in 2014. In 2015, there were 43 implants in Europe and the Middle East (EMEA) compared to 13 implants in the prior year. The increase in implants in EMEA is primarily attributable to reimbursement programs in France and Italy, which combined accounted for 31 implants in 2015 compared to three in the 2014. In the United States and Canada (North America), implants increased to 32 in 2015 compared to 16 in 2014. We began selling the Argus II in North America in 2014, and the growth in 2015 represents the positive results of our ongoing commercial efforts.

The amount of revenue recognized per implant in a period depends on several factors, including reimbursement policies set by private and government payers, the mix of implants between EMEA and North America, exchange rates, payment terms that may affect revenue recognition, and sales of ancillary products, such as clinical start-up kits and surgical supplies. Given the CMS pricing decision in 2015, we made the determination in late February 2016 to temporarily discount the Argus device in the US to approximately $92,000 compared to the $144,000 we sold the product for in 2015.

In the United States, the amount of sales revenue recognized per unit has been limited in some situations due to the uncertainties of the reimbursement environment and payment terms. Favorable claims outcomes and the development of positive coverage policies in the United States may eventually result in greater and earlier revenue recognition.

Cost of sales. Cost of sales increased from $3.6 million in 2014 to $5.3 million in 2015, an increase of $1.7 million or 47%. This increase is primarily due to increasing our production volume and yields in 2015 relative to 2014, resulting in more finished goods and sub-assemblies being accepted into inventory and a lower level of scrapped product being expensed. As we manufacture more products, our manufacturing overhead is spread over more units and our cost per unit produced decreases. Also, as our yields improve and we accept more units into inventory, the amount of scrapped product that is written off to cost of sales decreases. We will continue to invest in improving our manufacturing processes. However, if we produce fewer units in 2016, our cost per unit produced could increase. Additionally, our lower expected revenue per implant in 2016, as discussed above, will most likely lead to lower gross margins being recognized in 2016 than in 2015.

Research and development expense. Research and development expense decreased from $5.0 million in 2014 to $3.0 million in 2015, a decrease of $2.0 million, or 40%. The decrease is primarily attributable to utilizing $1.9 million of grant funding from The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to offset labor, consulting and overhead costs incurred during 2015 compared to no grant funding in the prior year. To date, we have recognized $1.9 million out of a total $4.1 million related to this grant. We expect research and development costs to increase in the future as we pursue further enhancements of our existing product and develop technology for our potential future cortical implant product.

Clinical and regulatory expense. Clinical and regulatory expense increased from $2.6 million in 2014 to $3.5 million in 2015, an increase of $0.9 million, or 35%. This increase is primarily attributable to the cost of post-market and other clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of our current product, to assess possible enhancements to our existing product, and to assess the efficacy of our technology for treating blindness due to Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Selling and marketing expense. Selling and marketing expense increased from $6.8 million in 2014 to $8.9 million in 2015, an increase of $2.1 million or 31%. This increase in costs is attributable to an increase in personnel, as well as higher costs for marketing and customer awareness programs, as we increased our efforts to commercialize the Argus II System. Beginning in 2014, we began selling our product in the United States, Canada and Spain. These costs increased as we intensified our selling and marketing efforts to accelerate the commercialization of our product, but we expect selling and marketing expense to decrease over time when expressed as a percentage of product revenue.

General and administrative expense. General and administrative expense increased from $6.6 million in 2014 to $8.2 million in 2015, an increase of $1.6 million, or 24%. This increase is primarily attributable to $0.8 million of higher stock-based compensation charges in 2015, $0.5 million in higher compensation costs, as well as higher legal, accounting, insurance and regulatory costs associated with being a public company.

Interest expense on the convertible promissory notes. Interest expense on the convertible promissory notes decreased from $2.0 million in 2014 to $0 in 2015. This decrease is due to the Company’s IPO, effective November 18, 2014, when all of the Company’s convertible promissory notes were converted into common stock. After the IPO, the Company did not incur interest expense on the convertible promissory notes.

Amortization of issuance discount on convertible promissory notes. Amortization of issuance discount on convertible promissory notes decreased from $5.1 million in 2014 to $0 in 2015. This decrease is due to the Company’s IPO, effective November 18, 2014, when all of the Company’s convertible promissory notes were converted into common stock. After the IPO, the Company did not incur the amortization of issuance discount on the convertible promissory notes

Write-off of unamortized discount on conversion of convertible promissory notes. The original terms of the Company’s convertible promissory notes specified that the notes automatically converted into common stock of the Company in the event, among other things, of an IPO. Accordingly, as of the IPO date, the Company wrote off $7.0 million of deferred issuance costs related to the convertible promissory notes that converted into common stock.

Net loss. The net loss was $35.2 million in 2014, as compared to $20.0 million in 2015. The $15.2 million reduction in net loss from 2014 to 2015 was primarily attributable to approximately $14.1 million of non-cash charges related to convertible debt and the conversion of convertible debt into common stock as a result of the Company’s IPO in November 2014. These expenses include approximately $2.0 million in non-cash interest expense, $5.1 million for the amortization of debt issuance discounts, and $7.0 million related to the write-off of unamortized debt issuance discounts.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our company’s consolidated financial statements have been presented on the basis that it is a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. We have experienced recurring operating losses and negative operating cash flows since inception, and have financed our working capital requirements through the recurring sale of our equity securities in both public and private offerings. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm, in its current report on our 2016 consolidated financial statements, has raised substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern (see “Going Concern” above”). 

On November 18, 2014, we sold 4,025,000 shares of common stock in an IPO, including 525,000 shares sold upon exercise of the underwriter’s over-allotment option, at a price of $9.00 per share. Our net proceeds totaled $34.2 million after cash offering costs of $2.0 million, and excluding non-cash costs of $2.9 million for the fair value of warrants and common stock issued in connections with services rendered.

In June 2016, the Company successfully completed a Rights Offering to existing shareholders, raising proceeds of $19.5 million net of cash offering costs, and selling 5,978,465 shares of common stock at $3.315 per share.

In March 2017, the Company successfully completed an additional Rights Offering to existing shareholders, raising proceeds of approximately $19.7 million net of cash offering costs, and selling 13,652,341 Units at $1.47 per unit. Each Unit consists of a share of common stock and a five-year warrant with an exercise price of $1.47.

Working capital was $9.6 million at December 31, 2016, as compared to $18.8 million at December 31, 2015, a decrease of $9.2 million or 49%. Working capital was $18.8 million at December 31, 2015, as compared to $33.5 million at December 31, 2014, a decrease of $14.7 million or 44%. We use our cash, money market funds and working capital to fund our operating activities.

Cash Flows from Operating Activities

During 2016, we used $25.1 million of cash in operating activities, consisting primarily of a net loss of $33.2 million, offset by non-cash charges of $9.1 million for depreciation and amortization of property and equipment, stock-based compensation, common stock issuable, bad debt expense, excess inventory reserve, and loss on disposal of property and equipment and decreased by a net change in operating assets and liabilities of $1.0 million.

During 2015, we used $20.6 million of cash in operating activities, consisting primarily of a net loss of $20.0 million, offset by non-cash charges of $3.3 million for depreciation and amortization of property and equipment, stock-based compensation, and common stock issuable and decreased by a net change in operating assets and liabilities of $3.9 million. This compares to 2014, when we used $17.1 million of cash in operating activities, consisting of a net loss of $35.2 million, offset by a non-cash charge of $6.9 million for the write off of unamortized issuance costs related to the automatic conversion of convertible debt triggered by our IPO, reduced by non-cash charges of $9.6 million for amortization of discount on convertible notes payable, non-cash interest accrued on convertible notes payable, depreciation and amortization of property and equipment, stock-based compensation, a stock grant to a related party, common stock issued for services, and common stock issuable and decreased by a net change in operating assets and liabilities of $1.6 million.

Cash Flows from Investing Activities

Investing activities in 2016 provided $4.9 million of cash, reflecting $5.4 million in proceeds from money market investments offset by $0.5 million for the purchase of equipment.

Investing activities in 2015 provided $17.5 million of cash, reflecting $18.3 million in proceeds from money market investments offset by $0.8 million for the purchase of equipment.

Investing activities in 2014 used $25.9 million of cash, reflecting $25.4 million in purchases of money market investments and $0.5 million for the purchase of equipment.

Cash Flows from Financing Activities

Financing activities provided $20.5 million of cash in 2016, including $19.5 million from the net proceeds from rights offering, $0.5 million from stock option and warrant exercises and issuance of common stock for ESPP purchases of $0.5 million. Financing activities provided $2.8 million of cash in 2015, including $2.7 million from stock option and warrant exercises, issuance of common stock for ESPP purchases of $0.2 million offset by $0.1 million for payment of employment taxes related to stock option exercises. 

Financing activities provided $2.8 million of cash in 2015, including $2.7 million from stock option and warrant exercises, issuance of common stock for ESPP purchases of $0.2 million offset by $0.1 million for payment of employment taxes related to stock option exercises. Financing activities provided $43.8 million of cash in 2014, including of $34.2 million net proceeds from our IPO, $9.1 million from the issuance of 1.3 million shares of common stock at $7.00 per share in a private placement, and $0.5 million from stock option and warrant exercises

Financial Commitments

Effective August 2012, we entered into a lease agreement (the “Sylmar Lease”) with a company owned by the major stockholder of the Company for office space for a term of five years that was to expire on February 28, 2017. The Sylmar Lease included rental of additional space commencing January 1, 2013 and a five year option to renew. The lease requires us to pay real estate taxes, insurance and common area maintenance each year, and is subject to periodic cost of living adjustments. In April 2014, the Sylmar Lease was renegotiated with the term ending on February 28, 2022, and a five year option to renew. The new lease also requires us to pay real estate taxes, insurance and common area maintenance each year and includes automatic increases in base rent each year. In November 2014, the industrial center in which the Company’s premises are located was sold to an independent third party.

Our Swiss subsidiary rents office space in Switzerland on a month-to-month basis for CHF 8,200 (approximately $8,200) per month.

Future minimum rental payments required under the operating leases are as follows for the years ended December 31 (in thousands).

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

At December 31, 2016, the Company did not have any transactions, obligations or relationships that could be considered off-balance sheet arrangements.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Interest Rate Sensitivity

The primary objective of our investment activities is to maintain the safety of principal and preserve liquidity without incurring significant risk. We invest cash in excess of our current needs in money market funds. In general, money market funds are not considered to be subject to interest rate risk because the interest paid on such funds fluctuates with the prevailing interest rate. As of December 31, 2016, our cash equivalents consisted solely of money market funds.

Exchange Rate Sensitivity

During 2016, approximately 53% of our revenue was denominated in U.S. dollars, 44% in Euros, and 3% in Canadian dollars. This compares with 2015 when approximately 46% of our revenue was denominated in U.S. dollars, 49% in Euros, and 5% in Canadian dollars. For 2016, 2015 and 2014, the majority of our operating expenses were denominated in U.S. dollars. We have not entered into foreign currency forward contracts to hedge our operating expense exposure to foreign currencies, but we may do so in the future.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Our financial statements and supplementary data required by this Item are provided in the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in this Form 10-K as listed in Item 15(a) of this Form 10-K.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Disclosure controls and procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports filed or submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Due to inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Further, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that degree of compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate. Accordingly, even effective disclosure controls and procedures can only provide reasonable assurance of achieving their control objectives.

As of December 31, 2016, management has concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective due to the existence of material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting described below. Notwithstanding the existence of the material weaknesses discussed below, our management, including our CEO and CFO, has concluded that the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly present, in all material respects, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented in this Annual Report on Form 10-K in conformity with GAAP.

This annual report does not include an attestation report from our independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by our independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”). Under the JOBS Act we are not required to comply with Section 404(b) because we are an “emerging growth company.”

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Our internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Our internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that:

1.    Pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets;

2.    Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with the authorization of our management and directors; and

3.    Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

As of December 31, 2016, based on the criteria established in “Internal Control — Integrated Framework” (2013 Framework) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission management has concluded the Company does not have complete written documentation of its internal control policies, procedures and controls and has not fully completed its testing of its key controls. Management evaluated the impact of its failure to have fully tested its internal controls and procedures and has concluded that the control deficiency that resulted represented a material weakness and that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

During its December 31, 2015 and 2016 audits, our independent registered public accounting firm communicated to management and our audit committee that it identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting due to audit adjustments identified with respect to revenue, accrued expenses, inventory, prepaid and accrued expenses, and stock based compensation.

A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. We identified the following material weaknesses:

·     Control over Financial Reporting. We did not consistently perform timely reconciliation of certain accounts, including revenue, deferred revenue, inventory, prepaid and accrued expenses, and stock-based compensation expense. This resulted in the incorrect recording of certain revenue and expenses that required various adjusting entries that we timely and fully recorded as part of the closing process.

·     Tracking of Back-up Prosthesis Units. For every surgery, we ship a back-up prosthesis unit along with the primary unit in case the primary unit cannot be used for some reason. Following the surgery the unused unit is returned to us. During the year ended December 31, 2015, we did not consistently follow internal procedures regarding the tracking and recordation of returned prosthesis units and the exchange of primary units for back-up units with our customers. When uncorrected this resulted in an understatement of cost of sales and an overstatement of inventory that required various adjusting entries that we timely and fully recorded as part of the closing process.

·     Updating of Standard Costs.  It is a customary practice for manufacturing companies to update their standard costs on a regular basis (at least annually) to ensure that inventory costs are accurately and properly stated.  During 2016, due to (i) the limited levels of production during the year, and (ii) that the Company established reserves against approximately 61% of the cost of year-end inventory, which reserved for the cost of nearly all of the goods manufactured in 2016, the Company did not update its standard costs at December 31, 2016. The impact on the 2016 financial statements of the Company not updating its standard costs was de minimis. The Company’s failure to update its standard costs at December 31, 2016 represented a material weakness in its internal control over financing reporting, and the Company intends to establish additional accounting procedures in 2017 to address this matter and to prevent a possible misstatement of future financial statements.

While we have taken actions to remediate these specific weaknesses, the Company does not have complete written documentation of its internal control policies, procedures and controls and has not fully completed testing of its key controls. Management evaluated the impact of its failure to have fully tested its internal controls and procedures and has concluded that the control deficiency that resulted represented a material weakness and that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Management’s Remediation Initiatives

In response to the above identified weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we have taken the following remediation measures:

·     Control over Financial Reporting. We have implemented additional processes and procedures surrounding the closing process, including the preparation and review of journal entries and account reconciliations to ensure accuracy of financial reporting including timely account reconciliation review. We have adopted further procedures and review processes surrounding revenue, deferred revenue, inventory, prepaid and accrued expenses, and stock-based compensation that will reduce end of accounting period adjustments. Additionally, we hired a new controller in the third quarter of 2016, who we believe will improve and strengthen our processes and controls in these areas. Finally, we are evaluating automated solutions that would reduce our reliance on manual processes and potentially improve our internal controls.

·     Tracking of Back-up Prosthesis Units. We conducted a multi-departmental review of how we track our back-up prosthesis units and implemented a manual monthly reconciliation procedure among accounting, billing and inventory management. In addition, during the second quarter of 2016, we implemented a software solution that allows us to track back-up units that are sent to customers and facilitates proper tracking and accounting for these units.

Our CEO and CFO, along with other key members of management, are and will be active participants in these remediation processes. We believe the steps taken to date have improved the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, however we have not completed all of the corrective processes and procedures as contemplated herein for the identified material weaknesses.

Changes In Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during or subsequent to our fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2016 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Inherent Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls

The design of any system of control is based upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events. There can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated objectives under all future events, no matter how remote, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may not deteriorate. Because of its inherent limitations, disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all misstatements. Accordingly, even effective disclosure controls and procedures can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their control objectives. In addition, the design of disclosure controls and procedures must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and that management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the benefits of possible controls and procedures relative to their costs. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with policies and procedures may deteriorate.

Item 9B. Other Information

None.

PART III

Certain information required by Part III is omitted from this Annual Report on Form 10-K and is incorporated by reference from our definitive proxy statement relating to our 2017 annual meeting of stockholders, pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, also referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as our 2017 Proxy Statement, which we will file with the SEC not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

Information regarding our directors, including the audit committee and audit committee financial experts, and executive officers and compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act will be included in an amendment to this Form 10-K or in our 2017 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

The information required by this item regarding executive compensation will be included in an amendment to this Form 10-K or in our 2017 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

The information required by this item regarding security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management will be included in an amendment to this Form 10-K or in our 2017 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

The information required by this item regarding certain relationships and related transactions and director independence will be included in an amendment to this Form 10-K or in our 2017 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services

The information required by this item regarding principal accounting fees and services will be included in an amendment to this Form 10-K or in our 2017 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

SECOND SIGHT MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.

AND SUBSIDIARY

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of Second Sight Medical Products, Inc. and Subsidiary

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Second Sight Medical Products, Inc. and Subsidiary (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity (deficiency), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2016. The Company’s management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2016 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As more fully discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company is subject to the risks and uncertainties associated with a new business and has incurred significant losses from operations since inception. The Company’s operations are dependent upon it raising additional funds through an equity offering or debt financing. The Company has no committed sources of capital and is not certain whether additional financing will be available when needed on terms that are acceptable, if at all. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans regarding these matters are described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

SECOND SIGHT MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARY

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(In thousands)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

SECOND SIGHT MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARY

Consolidated Statements of Operations

(In thousands, except per share data)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

SECOND SIGHT MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARY

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss

(In thousands)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

SECOND SIGHT MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARY

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity (Deficiency)

(In thousands)

SECOND SIGHT MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARY

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity (Deficiency)

(In thousands)

(Continued)